Originally Posted by Looner
This is not surprising coming from you (ie cluelessness) but Armstrong has been going to court for more pathetic reasons than even Apple for well over a decade now and now he decides (out of nowhere) he's not going to sue. Lol at logic.
If he never failed any drug test, frankly I find it wrong for this to have dragged on this long, Perhaps he did dope, yet that was NEVER established factually. There is no material basis for this having been pursued this long.
"Armstrong, who has branded the USADA investigation "an unconstitutional witch hunt," had gone to court in a bid to block the agency's proceedings.
But on Monday a federal judge in his hometown of Austin dismissed his lawsuit, leaving Armstrong until midnight on Thursday to tell USADA whether or not he would seek arbitration.
USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances -- including the blood-booster EPO, steroids and blood transfusions -- dating back to 1996, and said 10 of his former team-mates were ready to testify against him."
My question is where is the evidence apart from others'accusations?
Now this is troubling, "USADA said it also had blood tests taken from 2009-2010, when Armstrong briefly came out of retirement to compete internationally again, that were "fully consistent" with blood doping."
Oscar Pereiro -- handed the 2006 Tour victory after winner US Floyd Landis stated, "I'm convinced that the riders who spoke out against Armstrong have done so on condition that they won't be punished and that they won't have their winnings withdrawn. Is that right?"
My position: even if Armstrong or a tennis player is thought or believed or it is speculated or assumed to have doped and has been accused by others after the fact, if there is NO EVIDENCE, then the case is closed. Too bad. Its mute.
You'd have to be pretty dumb or arrogant to be shooting up with others just sitting around. Ok I can see you doping, but only with one or two people knowing, not scores of people (who themselves have been found guilty and have a clear conflict of interest).