No, Linus, I can't agree.
Let me put it like this.
I'm a nurse. Suppose some of my colleagues decided to accuse me of using meds illegally to get high. I submit and pass all the tests administration asks me to. And yet they still fire me because my colleague swears that I was using drugs. My performance on the job is stellar, but I'm a jerk, so it's an easy target. And then it comes to light that the administration who is making me take all these tests also accused my colleague, and my colleague, to make things easier on herself, implicates me.
I spend years fighting the charges, showing test results, spending uncountable hours and millions of dollars to clear my name. Even with proof (the test results), administration still thinks I'm doing drugs.
The moment I decide that irrespective of proof, I will always be thought of as guilty, and decide to spend my time and money elsewhere, administration says "see? We KNEW you were. Only guilty folk walk away!" My colleague gets a nice promotion, or at least doesn't get fired.
I'm the one who loses no matter what.
That's kind of how I see it. We are a country and society that doesn't punish without proof. When that happens, we rage against the decision, saying it's not fair. We have things like The Innocence Project, and the ACLU, and other organizations, which scream out "no proof, no punishment". We get mad here at WS when we know someone did it, but we also look at the law and at fairness, and say "well, the prosecution screwed up" (I am thinking of OJ Simpson here) or "that jury is beyond belief" (the Anthony fiasco).
We here at WS don't even investigate people who are not named suspects or POI based on someone's word.
That's fair. That's the system we work with. That's the basis of our legal judicial system. I'm the first to scream "Of course OJ/Casey did it!", but I'm also the first to say "the system is broken, let's fix it" or "well, there was tainted/questionable evidence" or whatever.
Fair is fair. If they can't get the proof, leave Lance (and the rest) alone, and develop a test that DOES show the evidence. Then use it and prove something. Othewise, let it go. It's similar to that little chinese girl who won big at the Olympics, and she was tested, came up negative, and no one's screaming for her medal. Or that girl who had her whole life and sexuality and gender questioned at another Olympics...
And in the end, it's simply a sport, right? In OJ and Anthony, it's lives I'm talking about...but fair is fair.
I think Armstrong is an easy target...he's not a nice person, apparently, and some people will take that to mean he's a doper, even without evidence and with clean tests. To me, this is a bullying thing, and a way to "get back" (although for what, I don't know) at him for something.
And I don't always expect people to tell the truth, or, if they are, to have that truth accurately reported. When it comes down to brass tacks, Armstrong passed the tests. If the tests are inadequate, who's fault is that? Not Armstrong's...not any cyclist's. It's the administration's fault.
And that goes across the board for everything. Fair is fair. Armstrong played by the rules set out by that administration - "pass these tests, you're good to go". He did.
And I say all this with the understanding that there are ways to fake the tests. I don't know if he did or did not. I don't know if he doped, or did not. What I do know is that irrespective of that, he took and passed all the tests they asked for.
It is on that basis that I say the issue is not Armstrong's, but the administration. Time to revamp the testing system...and not be a bully because you can't catch someone you think is doing something they may not be.
As always, just my opinion...and I'd ask that those folks who take serious umbrage at my posts realize that it *is* just an opinion, and nothing to get nasty about...and to take it a tad easier on me, please.
Thanks!
Best-
Herding Cats
