The Lance Armstrong I've followed and read about all these years wouldn't give up now, if he were innocent. He'd follow it up like he did investigating cancer. He'd consider it a challenge, which if won would make the world finally admit that he was right. Every hour riding in the snow and rain in training is worth a few months or a year of fighting, especially when he can afford the best resources money can buy.<p>He's still a hero of mine - he's the consummate professional, checking every tiny box that could possibly affect his performance, despite having some serious physiological advantages that might have left others feeling confident that they had it in the bag. He rode in the worst weather, just because he might compete in that weather. He lived for his life's work like most of us never will.<p>I believe he simply competed in a time where many really good racers were doping, and if you want to check all the boxes, that was one you had to seriously consider.<p>This is not he-said-she-said rumours. It includes 2009 and 2010 blood samples consistent with blood doping. Witnesses aren't enemies, they are some of his closest allies, people who he relied on for tens of thousands of kilometres. At some point the weight of evidence starts to mount up.<p>Keep in mind that the doctors (like Ferrari) who (allegedly) helped him, were experts in their field. They would have known every technique used to catch doping, and would have tested their methods against them. That's how you beat testing - you do your own testing, and if you can mask doping well enough, you use it on your top athletes.<p>Armstrong says he's willing to take people to court for this. If so, he's not only interested in moving on with his life. Moving on with his life would be ignoring it, and moving on.<p>So: still a hero and one of the most amazing athletes ever, but guilty.
>>The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?<p>And.<p>>>Tygart and the antidoping agency were basing their case not on a positive drug test but rather on other supporting evidence. (From <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armst...</a>)<p>Well I don't know the complete story of what tests and when he passed them.<p>But what are the odds of 'hundreds' of tests turning out out to be false negatives? And I suppose these tests are carried out all round the world in various competitions in various countries, in various labs, by hundreds of people over the years?<p>Its like their only evidence is he-said and she-said rumors over the years combined with the perceived impossibility of a cancer survivor making it through that high levels of endurance required to make it where Armstrong has made it.<p>>>The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.<p>If what I'm reading is true. This is something like a murder happens at a lane, then you and your enemy pass by that lane. Now your enemy complains to the police that you did it. And now the system has all rights to punish you on that statement alone.<p>This agency looks like to formed to increase their kill ratio. And to some how punish a few famous athletes so that they can justify their own existence and show the world why they are so important.
"The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"<p>I assume the USADA is stating that all these tests we wrong ? Or that his 'doping' technique was too advanced ? Seems a pretty long stretch of the bow in my mind.
It's ridiculous that the government pursue these charges as criminal. Any such issues should be dealt by the sport's own committee and not by a government body.
What a shame for the sport and community as a whole that this happened.<p>EDIT: HNers might enjoy this [0] relevant Wikipedia article<p>[0]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling#1886" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling...</a>