here is a gem wrote:
Lance apparently supports the lawyers at the USADA. Don't forget this gem:
After the SI article last year (January?), Lance tweeted the following:
"Great to hear that USADA is investigating some of SI's claims. I look forward to being vindicated."
Lance has been known to "support" the UCI from time to time, I hear?
Usually right after he failed a drug test. Like in the case below, for example.
Lance Armstrong's 2001 Tour de Suisse Test Results 'Suspicious' According To Scientist
Jun 01 10:22p by Sean Keeley
May 22nd’s episode of “60 Minutes” showcased a six-month investigation on Lance Armstrong and the various doping allegations he faces. Armstrong’s lawyers are demanding an on-air apology for the report, though they’re unlikely to get it. Just like they’re unlikely to squash the ongoing release of further rumors, like the latest one out of the Swiss anti-doping laboratory.
According to the director of the Swiss anti-doping laboratory, Armstrong’s test results from the 2001 Tour de Suisse were “suspicious” and “consistent with EPO use,” as the The Associated Press reported.
The director, Martial Saugy, made the statement in September, according to a person familiar with the investigation. What makes his extra interesting is that it’s the opposite of what he said in his statement made to officials from the FBI, the Food and Drug Administration and anti-doping authorities.
Armstrong has always denied doping, pointing to the fact that he has never tested positive. A ‘suspicious’ test isn’t a positive one, but it is just one more in a very long list of incriminating hearsay against Armstrong’s word.