Let this be an example to ALL athletes.

Armstrong is still a very rich, entitled prick.

had no particular reason not to except that pretty sure he's a repuglican and right now that's all that it takes.

still a wee bit sad tho for all those poor suckers that admired and revered him. what a douche.

I seem to remember him involved with progressive causes in Austin.

Armstrong has described himself as "middle to left." He's pro-choice, "not keen on guns," was against the Iraq war, and being an atheist, he's for separation of church and state. And he dated and was engaged to the very liberal Cheryl Crow for three yrs. It would therefore seem that, except for biking, he'd have little in common with fellow Texan, Geo. W. bush.


California Tobacco Tax Pits Lance Armstrong Versus Altria (R.J. Reynolds)
"Lance Armstrong, the cycling champion and cancer survivor, is putting $1.5 million behind a ballot measure to add $1 a pack to California’s cigarette tax, even as the tobacco industry has put up most of $40.7 million aimed at stopping it."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-23/california-tobacco-tax-pits-lance-armstrong-versus-altria.html



So, how can he be all bad?

Never liked him.

Jeebus.

Rude and crass.

...because he decided not to partake in their highly-biased process, does NOT automatically equate to "he doped"...that's the same sort of flawed logic that they used in Medieval England to determine witches...dunk them in water, if they drown they were innocent, if they floated they were a witch so they got burned at the stake...

The USADA had already decided his guilt, the only thing unknown was whether they were going to do say it to his face or do it through a press release...this whole thing stinks to high heaven...

Just wow.

TYY

I've been saying he was a doper for years!

So glad you dropped by.

Pretty simple, really. This notion that you need a failed drug test to prove PED use is quite bizarre. See Marion Jones and others on the long list of admitted dopers that never failed a test.

But you knew that.

He failed no test. Do you believe he is guilty until proven innocent?

Is in every interview, it can be a hearing or just talking to a Journo, Lance Armstrong has
always said "I have Never failed a drug test" He has never said "I have never taken steroids"

And just post stupid shit.

Thanks for the uplifting and positive post!

So, the noob is right. The USADA literally had no physical evidence of doping.

...seems to indicate, I dunno, innocence....but hey, maybe that's just me...I'd like to see some actual evidence before destroying a man's legacy...apparently you have a different standard of proof

No failed tests during all those years and now, years later,
they insist on pulling down a cycling icon on the say so of
some jealous losers.

I'm not buying it.

People love to knock down icons, which is sad. I would want hard conclusive evidence before I would join in destroying someone like Lance Armstrong (being attacked by jealous losers).

Even now, the test for EPO is super easy to beat. They allow a hemocrit of 50, so right before the test, hook up an IV to get hemocrit levels down. They still don't have a test for blood doping. Failing no tests means nothing. Back then, everbody was doping... those that didn't were blown out the back of the peleton.

as I said in another post in this thread, those who knew all told me definitively that this was the case.

It's sort of made me not understand what the obsession with "getting Armstrong" is motivated by.

It's not a combat sport, basically every single damn rider did it, who cares? I'm opposed to steroids in sports, very opposed, and that extends to all the other performance enhancers. But chasing down a single guy who isn't riding anymore and was nothing more than one among many?

I legitimately don't get what purpose this is serving.

Of course the dopers won. That what dope does, it gives people an unfair advantage so they win when they shouldn't.

Yes, all the people who stood on the podium with Lance doped. If they hadn't doped, they would have been beat by the next doper in line. That doesn't make it fair. I guarantee you there were people in the peloton during those years who didn't dope and would have placed a lot higher if the race was clean.

It's simply not a fair way to run a race. It's also not a safe way to run a race, because people can die from doping.

Giving Lance a pass because "everyone doped" simply makes it that much harder to keep the sport clean for the next generation of riders.

Doesn't the problem lie with that, with a sport that had failed to police itself so badly that simply to compete - forget winning - you had to be a doper?

You really think what they do with Lance will have an effect on this next generation of riders? I guess I can accept that, but I have real doubts as to whether that is true.

I also think that if they insist on getting Lance, they should be getting riders 2-30 from all those tours. Ban them all. It shouldn't just be that Lance is stripped - if anything they should acknowledge how messed up they had allowed their sport to become, and state that no Tour at all took place during the fifteen or so year stretch that includes Armstrong's seven wins.

Not sure about 2-30, but almost every single one of the top 5 in those years were sanctioned or implicated in way or another.

And yes, all wins in the period from 1997-2006 should be tossed because of this. That's more years than they lost to WWII.

It seems like this is the place where a number of us would agree.

But I think you're off on at least one end by a year.

Have to toss the 1996 Tour, where the whole podium were dopers: Riis, Ullrich, Virenque.

Dopers all.

Who are they going to give the title to? The entire peleton was doping.

Here is a rundown of second place finishers:
1999 : Alex Zulle took second. He has admitted to taking EPO in the past.
2000 : Jan Ulrich. Suspended and banned for doping.
2001 : Jan Ulrich. Yet more doping.
2002 : Joseba Beloki. Implicated in Operation Puerto.
2003 : Jan Ulrich. Yet more doping.
2004 : Andréas Kloden. Accused of blood transfusions in 2006.
2005 : Ivan Basso. More blood doping


Armstrong should have come clean a long time ago, and he probably would have been forgiven.

that can detect the differences between normal and synthetic EPO. This test is now the standard and was the sole means to detect for EPO use in the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The reliability of this test helps explain the cascade of athletes who have been caught and, subsequently, banned from competition. This surge in positive tests will likely decline as the “word” gets out and EPO use declines -- at least until someone figures out a work-around. Of course, there is always the next great pharmacologic or genetic cheat just lurking around the corner to consider. "

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/epo.html

He paid a total of $125,000 to the UCI, which is the organization that administers the tests.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-reveals-armstrong-made-two-donations-to-the-uci

He tested positive for corticosteroid, but was able to weasel out by backdating a prescription. And his 1999 tour samples later tested positive for EPO. They didn't test positive for EPO in 1999 because there was not test for EPO in 1999.

So the "he never failed a test" line is false. He did fail tests. He just never got sanctioned. But now he has both failed tests and also gotten sanctioned and stripped of his titles.

If they have official proof he fail a test then they need to come out with it.

And as a result of all this evidence, Lance has now been banned from the sport, and his titles will be revoked. He's just as guilty as any other doper who has been caught and sanctioned.

...both the UCI and USCycling have also said the same thing...He is retired, not sure how effective a "ban" is going to be. He has not now, or ever been "caught", he has refused to legitimize this pathetic withc-hunt...The evidence has NOT been produced, and the "eye-witnesses" were threatened in order to get their testimony...You know, shit that is blatantly illegal in a real court...

WADA shows all signs of going along with the USADA sanctions. UCI signed on to WADA's anti-doping code, which means that unless they do something drastic that will destroy all of their credibility, it looks to me like they are going to have to accept the findings of USADA.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in real court, prosecutors regularly cut deals with people in order to testify against the big fish. Besides, Lance Armstrong agreed to all the USADA doping procedures the day that he became a professional cyclist.

It was a good run while it lasted, but now he's caught. And, unlike when he first tested positive in '99, he doesn't get to change the rules after the fact this time.

..court...which is nowhere close to "being caught"...

Bottom line the USADA aren't even following their own goddamned rules in this witch-hunt so why should Lance?

UCI and USCycling are already on record as having told the USADA to step off....

By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

...the samples from `99 had major problems with chain of custody, and he NEVER failed a test for illegal substances at the time the tests were taken, better?

You can't make something illegal, and then retro-actively go back and claim he failed a test...

The samples were labeled with numbers, not names, so the people doing the tests had no idea whose sample was whose. So even if the wanted to spike them with EPO, they wouldn't have known which ones were Armstrong's. A journalist then got hold of the register which matched samples to riders. Of course they whole "they spiked the samples" argument is already pretty hopeless because there are no recorded instances in modern sports of a lab intentionally doing something like that.

Also, EPO was not made illegal retroactively. It was illegal the whole time, just there was not test for it. That's why Lance (and many others) were able to pass so many tests.

Also, you forgot about the corticosteroids. He only provided a prescription after he tested positive. His masseuse told the press that they backdated the prescription, but even if they didn't, it was still a violation of protocol. For obvious reasons, you need to list your medical exemptions before, not after, you test positive. Gee, I wonder why they let Lance slide for that... Could it maybe have something to do with the $125,000 he donated to UCI over the course of his career? Or the desire to have a "clean tour" after the disaster of 1998?

...cross-contamination, mis-labelling, all sorts of shenanigans...but sure, go ahead and take them as "proof"...So for the cream that he used that caused a minimal flag, when asked about it, he provided a prescription for it, no conspiracy there..

Is there any evidence of that, or are you just tossing out whatever excuse you can think of? I mean, yeah, anytime anyone tests positive for anything, they talk about cross-contamination and mis-labeling and try and come up with any other excuse they can think of, but there's zero evidence for any of that. No less than 6 of Lance's samples tested positive for EPO. And the pattern was entirely consistent with what an EPO regimen would look like. If you're actually interested, here's an interview with sports doctor Michael Ashendon who analyzes the evidence and explains why the evidence is so damning.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden/

Also, you don't seem to understand that the official protocol is that you need to provide your prescriptions before, not after you test positive. Otherwise, it is to easy to get a backdated prescription, just like Lance did. Oh, and there's no such thing as a "minimal flag". Alberto Contador got suspended for an infinitesmal amount of clenbuterol. If you have testing rules, you have to follow them -- it's hard enough to catch dopers with all the countermeasures they use, if you start letting people slide because they come up with a note from their mom, then nobody will every get caught.

At the end of the day, Lance doped, he tested positive, and now, finally, he got caught and sanctioned. It took a while, and it seemed like he was going to get away with it, but he didn't. Good for the sport.

that during this witch hunt lab testers admitted that even with the 'anonymous' numbers they all knew which samples belong to which riders.

Also the issue with chain of custody is that per the anti-doping regulations the 'B' samples should have been destroyed after the 'A' samples had been fully tested, unless there was a positive result. Therefore:
-many of these samples should not even exist
-given no positive 'A' result, there is no jurisdiction to test the 'B' samples
-as procedure has not been followed and paperwork on the 'B' samples does not correctly document the whereabouts and persons who had access, there is no way to guarantee they have not been tampered.

I am no fan of Armstrong, actually really dislike him as a person. I do acknowledge his ability as a cyclist and the good his foundation has done. I will believe his word over an agency that exempts itself from its own rules. I would like to see them put such effort into current athletes rather than chasing a retired rider so they can say 'gotcha'

While the Huffpo editors may have taken some license with their headlines, I used what THEY provided, as has ALWAYS been the expectation here at DU--and in fact, the requirement for LBN, if not GD. Your suggestion otherwise is not appreciated.

The section included should clarify. Note that the article includes a statement of intent from the head of the agency responsible that it is their intent to do so.

The USADA has literally no power to do ANYTHING to Armstrong (or most other athletes). Only the UIC and the Tour can, and the UIC has stated the USADA's investigation wasn't legit.

Armstrong is also right when he states this investigation is unconstitutional. It really is.

The one thing you can believe in!

and capitalize financially on it.

Sad that he took advantage of so many fans who trusted him.

Sad that he was such a poor role model.

Sad that his "competitiveness" reduced him to this. As we age, the muscles become less powerful. The joints fail. The reflexes and eyesight fade. The one thing we do have an opportunity to keep our entire life is integrity. Without integrity, really, how much is the rest worth?

Sad.

They all have a tragic flaw.

“There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now,” Armstrong said in a statement released on his website. "I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.”

Armstrong, a survivor of testicular cancer and major fundraiser for research through his Livestrong foundation, had until Thursday night to inform USADA if he would fight the charges, with his last option arbitration. The cycling champion refused that option, saying USADA was ''on a witch hunt" and that the agency didn't have the authority to impose a lifetime ban.

“USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles,” he said. “I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours.”


Armstrong asked for a permanent injunction in federal court against USADA’s charges, saying the agency did not have jurisdiction and that it was violating his constitutional rights to due process. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the case earlier this week. In issuing his decision, Sparks did say USADA’s charging document was of "serious constitutional concern."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-lance-armstrong-usada-doping-case-20120823,0,1326584.story

You are being so damned rude. READ my post. I make it clear what the actual facts are and where it appears HUFFPO editors took license with their headlines.

you are correct. all they have to do is google. It's out there exactly as you posted.

Incredible rudeness.

People who didn't see this coming are pretty sad.

for the losers.

As several posters have pointed out, blood doping was much more the rule than the exception in distance cycling for a very long time.

I guess you know nothing.

Why does he have to be a right-winger? Because he's from Texas.
If you bothered to read all of the responses in this thread, you'd see Joey posted info about Lance's contributions and thoughts.

And by the way, you don't have to be a dick when you post. Unless your name really fits...

So rather than relying on PR, I'll take his own words for it, thank you.

I live in a universe of evidence.
I frankly don't care what Armstrong's politics are, though I haven't the foggiest idea why he would need PR about his politics. This country is pretty damn conservative, if you haven't figured that out. Cyclists are conservative or liberal, just because one rides a bike doesn't make one a liberal.

And by the way, my mom's partner is well-heeled, and is a cancer survivor. She's pretty far from a conservative. I like the broad-brush of the cancer community though.

a sum that equals its insignificance. I and many others have had the opportunity of speaking with him in a completely unrelated and private setting. He's not an ogre or raving lunatic, but he is very right wing in his opinions on what and how this nation should move.

I would never broadcast the content, time, or setting of our conversations, so take my word for it or don't, it makes no difference at all to me, him, or the world.

And he did vote for the Idiot Son, twice. You can easily find that info on your own.

Will a police squad show up to confiscate his trophies or medals or whatever they are.

I also think it is a JOKE to not realize that basically everyone in that entire sport was doping during Armstrong's years at the top.

Everyone of my friends who participate in top level cycling (whatever that top level is below the tour riders and whatnot) said the same thing when asked - "Armstrong is definitely doping. But so is everyone else."

These guys ride serious competitions, but at a distinct level down from riders who participate in the various Tours. Their level is probably for the most part clean - I have a hard time believing that the current guys are clean, and I definitely don't believe the riders Armstrong competed against were any cleaner than he was.

I usually hate the "everybody does it" defense. But I think in this case, looking at the Armstrong years, literally everyone was doing it.

Ullrich, Basso, Beloki, Kloden, Vino, and a bunch of others who stood on the podium with him. All busted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

It just seems crazy. He was using, they were using. It's ancient history. Who cares?

It's rare that I find myself taking a "don't punish the cheater" stance - but if everyone was doing it, is there really an unfair advantage? He's not riding anymore, so how does it influence what's happening today?

Is the idea that if you take an "industry leader" down (in this case, Lance), even a retired one, it sends a message to current riders? That's the only sense I can make of it, and I really question if it has any positive effect.

There were a few clean riders. And not everyone who was doping was doing the same substances, so again, it was not an even match.

Besides, expecting people to dope because everyone else does? That stuff can do major damage to a human being. Not fair.

I say ban Lance like the rest of the dopers.

that you can't compete for the podium unless you're doping, it seems weird to me to pursue one *former* rider.

I'd feel very differently if he were a current rider - there, using "everybody does it" has clear, present-day consequences.

But this is not the case. He's a former rider that no one needs to compete against because he's done.

just looking at 1996 to 1998, there is ONE single guy on the podium who hasn't been definitively busted (Bobby Julich).

He wasn't someone who used drugs reluctantly, to keep up with the pack. He was one of the organizers of systematic PED use on the USPostal team. He not only doped himself, but he encouraged, some say forced, his teammates to use the drugs also. And he was known as an enthusiastic enforcer of the "omerta" -- the code of silence -- and would retaliate and bully people who tried to speak out against doping. For example, there was the infamous incident where he chased down Filippo Simeoni.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/jul/24/tourdefrance2004.tourdefrance1

You are right that they are all doing it, particularly in Armstrong's era. But that doesn't make it right. Letting Armstrong keep his titles simply tells the world that it's OK to cheat, and as long as you cheat more than the rest of the world, and bully or bribe anyone who dares speak out against you, you can come out the champion. I don't think they should give his titles to Ullrich or anyone else, because they were all dirty. But we shouldn't celebrate Armstrong as a champion because he wasn't the best bike rider, he was just the guy who had the best doping program, the most shameless cheater of them all. The record books should read that there was no champion to the Tour during the Armstrong years.

Why does Ullrich get to keep his title?

You want Lance's titles? Fine. Be honest about it then, and let the record show you ran NO tour de frances for the fifteen years stretch that Lance's seven win sit within.

I mean, I think that's what would have to go hand in hand.

Acknowledge that during that, say, 15 years, you didn't even have a sport.

If they were to do that, I'd be more inclined to think the result was fair.

according to wiki, it seems?

Just found that when looking at the 1996 tour de france wiki page.

(paraphrasing)

so there's that.

See my #35.

We don't want to summon the milk cops to DU. We've been coasting under the wire just fine, thankyouverymuch.

We both race bikes, and follow cycling very closely.
This is equivalent to the Russian doping federation stripping a Russian hockey player of an NHL title (or about as close as one can get to this current situation).

Every Saturday and Sunday morning the at the break of dawn they are out their riding, I live in a Boston suburb and the first 65 degree day after the winter its like the Tour De France right outside my window.

They are officially responsible for the US implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code. From what I understand, the UCI, the governing body of cycling, has signed on to the WADA code, and thus they have to accept USADAs findings.

There may be a little room for Armstrong to try and fight this through the UCI. But it won't be so easy. The UCI is already seen by many as corrupt, and complicit in covering up for Armstrong (for example, Armstrong has donated $125,000 to UCI over the course of his career, and accepting this money is a pretty big conflict of interest for UCI). If they step in and try to overrule the agency which they had previously delegated the responsibility of doping controls to, in order to protect their star, it will look pretty bad.

At least that's what I've heard.

It's also a weird grey area, because it's taxpayer-funded, but not a government agency, and not has zero authority to do anything. It cannot strip Lance or ban him, only the UIC and Tour can, and I doubt he will be banned by the UIC.

Lance Armstrong Statement on Decision Not to Fight Doping Charges

There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/24reuters-cycling-armstrong-doping-text.html?hp

There is a big squigly can of worms behind all this see my post below for links...

He once tested positive for corticosteroid, and then provided a backdated prescription to get a therapeutic use exemption. Also, his 1999 urine samples tested positive for EPO.

So it's not true that he never failed a test. He failed tests, but he didn't get sanctioned for it. Until now. Now he has both failed drug tests and also been banned from the sport, and stripped of his titles. As it should be.

A journo going back and testing frozen samples with sketchy chain of custody doesn't mean a damned thing...His only accusers were admitted dopers and cyclists that had been threatened with their own sanctions if they didn't testify against him...

The USADA and this Tygart guy are a joke..

He tested positive for corticosteroid in an official test. He then produced a backdated prescription for a medical use exemption. This was a violation of protocol, but for some reason they let him slide. In other news, Lance Armstrong donated $125,000 to UCI over the course of his career.

Also, it wasn't a journalist who went back and tested for EPO. It was a lab. There was no "sketchy chain of custody", whatever that means, the samples were in test-tubes, in possession of the lab. All the journalist did was get hold of the test results, and the register that matched the samples (which were labeled with codes) to names of riders.

Finally, it's not true that his only accusers are admitted dopers. They also include a masseuse, an assistant, three-time Tour de France champion Greg Lemond, just to name a few. And George Hincapie, who never tested positive for anything, was set to testify against Lance.

How was it 'back-dated'...i don't ever remember being given a 'future-dated' prescription...

Greg Lemond was one of his prime accusers in the Grand Jury and they didn't buy his bullshit either...All of the people that were going to testify did so or risk being accused by the same tyrant that is leading this witch hunt...

My apologies, I thought it was the journo that did the test, rather than stealing the test results and claiming they were somehow proof that Armstrong was doping...

Why wouldn't an athlete donate to the governing body if they promoted good sportsmanship and worthy causes??

In other words, he tested positive with no exemption and no prescription. Then he went to a doctor and got the doctor to write a prescription. The doctor wrote an earlier date on the prescription, so it would cover the time of the test. Providing a prescription after the fact is a violation of protocol, and he should have been sanctioned.

But he clearly failed a drug test, of that there is no doubt.


May I ask why you are such the Lance Armstrong defender? Because, truthfully, the odds that he was clean are pretty much zero.

He clearly did NOT fail the test as he had a prescription and was not sanctioned. Why would he provide the prescription before being tested if he had no reason to believe that it would cause a false-positive?

Why am I such a defender of Lance? 1) because I believe you actually need PROOF before claiming guilt, and that has not been provided, and 2) because he saved my life. Thanks to his inspiration I stopped smoking after 30+ years and have been nicotine free for over two years now...

The rules say you need to produce the prescription first. If you produce the prescription later, it's a violation of the protocol. I hope that you are capable of understanding why this rule is necessary.

His masseuse was the person who said she witnessed the prescription being back-dated, and, like the other dozen or so people who have spoken out against Lance, she has absolutely no reason to lie about. But, even if she's lying, he still failed the test, by any plausible definition.

2) The masseuse went to the Dr's office with Lance and watched his doctor commit fraud?

3) The vast majority of people speaking out against Lance have several VERY large axes to grind...Greg Lemond prime amongst them...

1) The medication contained the banned substance. Get it?

2) She heard team officials talking about what to do and they came up with the medication story and decided to backdate the prescription.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zJ9IOdnm5mQC&pg=PA133

3) LOL. Yes, I'm sure all ten of them are just bitter and disgruntled.

...Until we see PROOF the USADA has nothing...

say he was a doper. There are some controversies about old blood samples. I think that summarizes it. Corrections welcomed. It's late and I'm tired.

a winner should be able to do so without cheating/doping, doing wrong

and it will take ALL to be stripped, so that they see it is not worthwhile to cheat

then the "well everyone does it, so I gotta do it" will see they are going to get caught, and then the race will be clean.

(much like cops who abuse, with all looking guilty til the last bad one is cleared out, then all can be looked at as good.)

What better purpose than for the pre-teens imagining they are a champ riding their bikes through their streets thinking they can, without doping, become a champ.

What really is more important than that?

(apply the same rationale to do nothing to Penn State and Jerry Sanduski and Joe"Win at all cost, and shut the f up about anything that doesn't bring in millions to the team" Paterno)

Cleaning up starts somewhere. And make sure to do it top-down, with the coaches and money people on top, so that the "athelete" is not told they need to go the 2% difference or not be allowed to try.

And cyclists will risk getting banned. And big bans they are (not like the MLB).

After hundreds of negative tests, with no known evidence of any cheating, the fact is that Armstrong got hounded into this decision. USADA is but the latest that Armstrong had to contend with, as newspapers, various governing agencies of the sport, the court system and various pundits all accusing him of cheating with no proof whatsoever.

But, but, but, everybody else was doping at the time, and he won, so he must have been doping. That's still not evidence. In fact despite all the hounding that has gone on, nobody has come up with a single piece of credible evidence that would stand up in court.

I can understand why Armstrong dropped this fight. It has cost him tons of money, lots of time, stress, etc. Even after being out of the game for years, he was still being hounded, and that probably would have continued for the foreseeable future. Who wants to spend the rest of their life like that? I wouldn't.

This man didn't lose his medals because he cheated, but rather because he was hounded out of them by a vindictive system that wouldn't leave him alone.

Because they had no evidence. Hearsay evidence isn't admissible in a court of law. That was in February. In June, the USADA guy jumped into the pissing contest and charged Armstrong, again with no physical evidence. As Armstrong's statement says, it is an unconstitutional investigation, and even breaks the USADA's own regs and protocols.

Whether or not he did dope is moot in this case: the USADA overstepped and still is. Just because you want -- or even know -- someone is guilty doesn't mean you just get to ignore all due process and say he or she is.