Dude I know what they got Jan for. His case was just settled last month, ye last month from 2006. So why are you not giving an outcry there. There is a ton of evidence out there on Lance. Again, if it does not meet the standard of proof fine

Dude I know what they got Jan for. His case was just settled last month, ye last month from 2006. So why are you not giving an outcry there. There is a ton of evidence out there on Lance. Again, if it does not meet the standard of proof fine, but please, please like some of these yeh hoo's, don't say there is no evidence.....And in totality there is more evidence on Lance than was on Basso, Pelozotti, Valverde ect.....they did not fail a test

AS per Alberto Contador, it would not suprise me if they have evidence of plasticisors in urine tests. This would be evidence of transfusions, which could be backed up by witness evidence.

plasticisors are evidence that you've had an IV of some type and are not illegal.

I would say witnesses and money tranfers and blood readings and midnight meetings and meetings in vans and the list goes on. But you guys are convinced. So we will see, but as Macaroon said, if he was caught with a needle in his arm you would say that is not evidence. Or like one of you guys said, without a positive there is no proof. Basso never admitted. By your logic, why should Valverde offer an explanation? I though it was innocent till proven guilty. He should not have to give a defense......................Lets see what happens

I would say witnesses and money tranfers and blood readings and midnight meetings and meetings in vans and the list goes on. But you guys are convinced. So we will see, but as Macaroon said, if he was caught with a needle in his arm you would say that is not evidence. Or like one of you guys said, without a positive there is no proof. Basso never admitted. By your logic, why should Valverde offer an explanation? I though it was innocent till proven guilty. He should not have to give a defense......................Lets see what happens

I able able to comprehend. It is they are not aware of all the thigs that have come up as evidence over the years. Not just what has been read on ST and the papers the past year. When a guy has a centrifuge machine in his van crossing the border????
Anyone who has followed cycling since, at least the early 90's knows that most teams carried centrifuges, heck many riders had their own. Is that proof that they all doped?
/ Guys have been busted with less evidence than Lance.
Can you name a few? When you do this let's find proof, not allegations that have yet to be fully vetted.

Basso said he just "thought" of doping. Said he never did. There is no crime in that
Do you know why he made that admission? I'll tell you: because they had bags with his blood in them, he was nailed and took a ban while not admitting to doping.

. Valverde said he never doped. So what if dna was found. Innocent till proven guilty. There was no positive.
So what if DNA is found? DNA found in blood bags found in one of the biggest doping busts with a now notorious doping doctor?
The one guy I responded to said unless Lance tested positive, he is innocent...period.....So I gave examples of riders. So now its "but" but"but" dna in bags ect.......Cheers

No I was using the posters words, so quit trying to flip. The poster said..................."Unless Lance tests positive he is innocent" regardless of other evidence......................Basso only said that when?.......huh.....So your link, here is the title
'All my wins have been achieved in a proper and clean manner'

• Photos

By Agence France Presse

Basso readies to meet the press.
Photo: Agence France Presse – 2007

Ivan Basso said Tuesday that even though he had planned to blood dope for the 2006 Tour de France, he had actually never taken banned drugs or used blood transfusions.
Why ban him. He never doped, just was going to try to. It was attempted but not done, he never did the race, so by his own admission he never doped. Why suspend ? If using your measure of not a positive test...
So if Lance planned on doping (hypothetical) in a future race that he never competed in, should he be banned?........

Why ban him. He never doped, just was going to try to. It was attempted but not done, he never did the race, so by his own admission he never doped. Why suspend ?

What's the no-needle period? Did something change recently? I recall (possibly incorrectly) that when Contador was first popped for clen that the presence of plasticisors was not an issue for him.

I think lance certainly doped.

I agree with the document, at least the first couple pages I wrote. The USADA is grinding axes and is not accomplishing anything practical with this investigation.

At this point, it's clear that blood doping could beat the system that Lance won his TdFs with. Everyone was on that system it appears, and Lance beat everyone there was, so might as well just move on to the current blood passport generation.

Landis has plenty of motivation to lie/hate on lance. The Feds breathed down his neck very heavily, and could go after him at any point. He was supposed to be paid money in his defense of the drug charges by Lance, and Lance eventually pulled the plug leaving him heavily in debt.

The evidence is weak, and the punishment has started before proof of the violation. The grant of authority appears pretty weak as well.

Landis is one of 10 witnesses, with his testimony being potentially easy to poke holes in due to his prior lies, they may not even be using him. The funny part though is if you read the document further, you'd see they quoted Landis' book in their letter, and yet also said the people testifying against lance who are convicted dopers are liars. So which is it?

The current passport generation includes Lance, and his 2010 numbers during the tour look heavily suspicious.

Yep, ten witnesses not proof. Money transfers not proof. Again since you decided to the personal insult thing.....See ya