rekrunner wrote:
1) Landis' words can lead investigators to discover new, verifiable facts, from other, credible sources, that they may have not otherwise found.
2) Yes they did. Michael Ashenden tested 87 urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France for synthetic EPO. 13 tested positive. 6 of those came from Lance. Two more of Lance's samples also showed evidence of synthetic EPO, but the definitive criteria was not met, so these were not counted. It is an indisputable historical fact that 6 of Lance's urine samples from 1999 tested positive for synthetic EPO. So claiming that "Lance never tested positive" is simply untrue. Facts are facts.
3) Hey look -- lots of "shreds of evidence" beyond Landis' wild imagination. Firsthand testimony from friends, wives, teammates and employees.
1. If they actually DISCOVER any new facts, please get back to us. In the meantime, all they have is the word of someone without a whole lot of credibility.
2. A biased investigator (yes I've read his interview -- spare me) tested some samples for which the chain of custody had been completely broken years after the fact and said they were Lance Armstrongs because he said he matched the numbers. It is more than disputable, it is laughable. That's why it was rejected out of hand by UCI and WADA
3. Testimony? Like under oath? Cause I seem to recall something about... what was it Frankie Andreu's wife said something about Lance saying something in a room in which apparently nobody else (including the doctors who were present) heard it. Is there any other "testimony" besides that? Please, what courtroom did this take place in? I'd like to read the court transcript.