evidence mounting against Lance Armstrong

Here's the problem with your logic. They won't go 50 deep to find a non-drugged champion, they will merely give the yellow jersey to the next in line that wasn't busted in that particular year.Sort of like Oscar Pereiro winning yellow when Landis was busted. He was a drug cheat - in your mind did he win it fairly because he didn’t get caught in ‘06?The witch hunt is an exercise in futility. Lance haters need to move on because he's probably not going to get caught.

Livingstoned wrote:

Why is it so important that he's caught when "everyone" else was doping? Because everyone wasn't doping. Doesn't matter if you have to go 50th into the peloton to find the deserving winner. The yellow jersey doesn't mean sh*t if you can't win it fairly.

To all the Lancey fanboys... the evidence is fairly detailed stuff. Sorry, but your boy wonder is going down. If he lived in any other country, he would have gone down a long time ago.

And that's where your logic is wrong: he will get caught and you need to move on. Dopers suck. Also, read my post genius- I said doping is a small part of the federal investigation. Likely, he will be nailed on tax evasion. Happy trails, enjoy watching Leadville!

Get Real Real wrote:

A complete waste of tax payer dollars on something the tax payers don't give a crap about, all so a government attorney can make a name for himself investigating and potentially prosecuting a crime that no one in America REALLY cares about.

Let the French pay for it.

Here's the other thing, the entire sport of cycle has been dirty so long, and so thoroughly...that to find anyone guilt guarantees that some ahole's get off scott free.

Wast of time and money, Americans don't care.

I don't know exactly where I stand on this, but "let the french pay for it" is classic! And I bet they would. Is it too late to send a request?

Part of me thinks that if the whole sport is dirty at the top and they all know it, and Lance used his superior talent and work ethic to raise awareness and money for cancer research. Maybe this is not worth it.

Maybe more harm than good comes from it. But it's a slippery slope, if we turn a blind eye on this, what will we ignore next time?

Perspectivation wrote:

Maybe more harm than good comes from it. But it's a slippery slope, if we turn a blind eye on this, what will we ignore next time?

If we turn a blind eye on this, we'll ignore, well...this next time. But, because the gov't wouldn't be distracted by figuring out whether a single cyclist doped or not, they might uncover something slightly more important to US citizens.

I'm not 100% sure, but I understood the French are conducting their own criminal investigation.I also wonder, is the federal prosecutor an elected position, where he has to care what American taxpayers want?Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular.

Perspectivation wrote:

I don't know exactly where I stand on this, but "let the french pay for it" is classic! And I bet they would. Is it too late to send a request?

Part of me thinks that if the whole sport is dirty at the top and they all know it, and Lance used his superior talent and work ethic to raise awareness and money for cancer research. Maybe this is not worth it.

Maybe more harm than good comes from it. But it's a slippery slope, if we turn a blind eye on this, what will we ignore next time?

First of all, sorry for my misspelling and my bad English.

Pereiro was a good cyclist who ranked 10th twice in the Tour before that year. That year he profited from a flight and ended 2nd. He never was a positive. But he never recovered from that tour, either.

I know that there can be doubts, and even very well founded suspitions, but think that you need proofs not only to punish, but even for prosecuting.

Valverde was another case, never positive, and no proofs, only a name that could match with him, or not. And he is on suspension for two years. To me, that is not fair.

Armstrong on the other hand was caught in 1999 but it was too late for prosecuting, according to some technicalities. In that case there is something that can be done, i think. It can be investigated, not because of being who he is, but just as it is done with dozens other cyclists.

Valverde... not fair??? you must be joking, he wasn't banned earlier because he was covered by high Spanish instances.

Remember who won the tour this year? German anti-doping expert Werner Franke already had proof against him in 2007 after he won his first tour. Contador was linked to doctor Fuentes but was removed from the list due to his role as a crown witness. Furthermore he was covered by.... (you guessed it)

No joke about Valverde.

Has he ever tested positive? Or found with drugs or something?

What do they have? A nickname of a pet in a list.