Lance Armstrong stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles

US Anti-Doping Agency to ban Lance Armstrong for life, strip Tour de France titles - News | FOX Sports on MSN



I don't like cheaters in sports. I can't stand Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa (baseball)... and of course there's the cheaters in boxing, such as Margacheato, and the fighters that have been caught using PED's.

But I can't help but feeling devastated by these news. Number 1, Armstrong never failed a drug test while he was racing. Number 2, the fact that this guy was even racing after surviving testicular cancer is awesome... and something that has given inspiration to a lot of people. Number 3, many cyclists are on PED's... it's nothing new or unheard of in the sport. The fact that a person can win or even survive such a grueling race is a huge feat in and of itself. And finally... Lance has given so much to so many people. His foundations have helped countless people. To totally ignore all of that and just up and strip him of all his titles, is a humongous slap in the face. Besides, the biggest factor of them all is that he never actually failed a drug test. How do you justify such a huge punishment based on that??

Sometimes we let the real scum bags off with a slap on the wrist (Margarito, sorry... he should've gotten more than a year).... and give out devastating punishment to those who least deserve it. Even-handed and/or consistent punishments in sports are hard to come by. Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction... and maybe I'll feel a little different tomorrow... but I doubt it. So far the overwhelming public reaction has been in support of Lance. Fuck the USADA and all their sanctimonious bullshit.

I don't know what the real truth is, but it seems like the USDA went way out of their way to hang Armstrong. It's sad, I guess Lance had just had enough of the bullshit.

Another sports hero ruined, great job USDA, this should make Armstrong haters and his critics happy. :(

As far as I'm aware he never tested for anything, I think after ten years of dealing with allegations he just got sick of dealing with em and the usda took it as admission of guilt.

If he never tested positive, then it is absurd and makes no sense to me.

Fucking bullshit.

Yeah, this is absolute bs in my opinion. I thought the same thing as the thread starter when I first read the story and I think that there is more to this than meets the eye because they really seemed to go out of their to hang this guy.

Greg LeMond might rise back to the top as the Greatest American cyclist ever after this....he always was in my mind.

Lance should still fight the charges, his name and reputation should matter more than anything else.

It is being fought outside of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lance should still fight the charges, his name and reputation should matter more than anything else.

---

I read that to fight it, USADA has evidence that they would produce in any hearing and obviously its just damage limitation on Armstrongs behalf. Just say "enough is enough, I dont have theenergy for this any more"

Now if it were myself and im sure everyone else too, that if I was clean and always had be id be revving and chomping at the bit to clear my name but Lance doesnt want this evidence brought to the publics attention because right now, naive people are feeling sorry for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lance should still fight the charges, his name and reputation should matter more than anything else.

---

I read that to fight it, USADA has evidence that they would produce in any hearing and obviously its just damage limitation on Armstrongs behalf. Just say "enough is enough, I dont have theenergy for this any more"

Now if it were myself and im sure everyone else too, that if I was clean and always had be id be revving and chomping at the bit to clear my name but Lance doesnt want this evidence brought to the publics attention because right now, naive people are feeling sorry for him.

---

I dont give a fuck either way what he does, people deal with whats brought up in their own life however they will.

If you are going to go bankrupt in a legal fight why fight? If your name is so combined into your ego that you feel you have to fight; that to me is a poor perspective prior to the choice of whether to fight or not.

I see your point too but the word naive could be construed as an attack on those here who are simply on side with the law that you should be innocent until proven guilty.

It will all come out if he is guilty, even out of a court.

Thing is if they do speak out publicly, he can do them for slander as well and could probably recoup more outlay, so he could be just seeing if they will play all their cards at once :-\ I dont know, but its good to look at stuff from both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lance should still fight the charges, his name and reputation should matter more than anything else.

---

I read that to fight it, USADA has evidence that they would produce in any hearing and obviously its just damage limitation on Armstrongs behalf. Just say "enough is enough, I dont have theenergy for this any more"

Now if it were myself and im sure everyone else too, that if I was clean and always had be id be revving and chomping at the bit to clear my name but Lance doesnt want this evidence brought to the publics attention because right now, naive people are feeling sorry for him.

---

From everything I've read, Armstrong passed every drug test administered to him. What sort of evidence would the USADA have, other than the cyclists that didn't win the Tour de France saying... "Oh, he has to be doping. No one can be that good."?

So I guess in this case... "naive people"... by your definition, would be those people that need concrete evidence of wrongdoing before convicting or condemning an athlete of doping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Greg LeMond might rise back to the top as the Greatest American cyclist ever after this....he always was in my mind.

---

He always was in his own mind as well. Ever hear Lemond talk about Armstrong? Not a fan.

here's a great article i read in the washington post about lance and the doping charges:

Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy - The Washington Post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Greg LeMond might rise back to the top as the Greatest American cyclist ever after this....he always was in my mind.

---

He always was in his own mind as well. Ever hear Lemond talk about Armstrong? Not a fan.

---

He used to be an Armstrong fan....until Armstrong threatened him. He told LeMond "I'll have cyclists testify that you used PEDs"....what an ironic turn of events eh?

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

---

Yes but he was caught ATTEMPTING to fight with loaded gloves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

---

Yes but he was caught ATTEMPTING to fight with loaded gloves

---

Yes but that still doesn't mean he used loaded gloves. (maybe he did in the past but there's no EVIDENCE)

Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test yet everyman and his dog that knew him says he was a drugs cheat.

I dont know innocent or what? But like everything else Margaritto included; if he was innocent and wanted it proven beyond public doubt, he would sit his own lie detector test. He'd be screaming for one right about now.

Well..... here's an inkling as to how the U.S. public is reacting to Lance's misfortunes:


Livestrong donations skyrocket in wake of Lance Armstrong’s decision to stop fighting charges | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

"Drugs or no drugs," Matthew Serge wrote on Twitter, "anyone that raises $500 million to fight cancer is cool by me."

That there sums it up.

He had cancer and raised money for charity so his "possible cheating" should be given the spanish archer. Cheating at sport doesn't make you a peado. It just means you didn't win fair and square. That's it.

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

---

Rightfully, there are a lot of questions over Armstrong though.

In the 1999 tour he tested positive for corticosteroids, but it was overturned after he produced a prescription for it.

When his frozen samples from '99 were tested in '05 for EPO, which wasn't something that was tested for at the time, they came back positive.

One of his old team mates, Tyler Hamilton, also said Armstrong failed a test at the 2001 Tour de Suisse - for EPO - but the UCI helped brush it under the carpet. The director of the lab that carried out those tests told the FBI that he met with the UCI to discuss the positive test and was told that it wasn't to go any further.

Doping was rampant in cycling in that time and with the amount of people willing to testify that they saw him use drugs, or used drugs alongside him, and the reports above, he has a lot of questions to answer imo.

Unfortunately he's chosen not to answer them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cressa121

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

---

Rightfully, there are a lot of questions over Armstrong though.

In the 1999 tour he tested positive for corticosteroids, but it was overturned after he produced a prescription for it.

When his frozen samples from '99 were tested in '05 for EPO, which wasn't something that was tested for at the time, they came back positive.

One of his old team mates, Tyler Hamilton, also said Armstrong failed a test at the 2001 Tour de Suisse - for EPO - but the UCI helped brush it under the carpet. The director of the lab that carried out those tests told the FBI that he met with the UCI to discuss the positive test and was told that it wasn't to go any further.

Doping was rampant in cycling in that time and with the amount of people willing to testify that they saw him use drugs, or used drugs alongside him, and the reports above, he has a lot of questions to answer imo.

Unfortunately he's chosen not to answer them.

---

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

Didn't know that it was often prescribed in cancer patients. That's fair enough

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

I think that would be the case had they gone and tested Armstrong's samples specifically. I believe the French lab that conducted the tests used many samples from the '99 tour, and they didn't know which athlete they were testing as the samples only had a reference number and not the name. It wasn't until a journalist got his hands on the results and matched the code on the sample to the code on Armstrong's registration forms that this got out.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

It's possible. I know a number of the witnesses have been implicated in doping themselves and have been offered reduced sentences if they testify against Lance, which doesn't sit too well with me. A number also fell out with him so could have an axe to grind. Hincapie would be the most compelling witness imo, as they are, or were, close friends throughout Armstrong's career. I don't see what he'd stand to gain by lying


d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

---

I do see where you're coming from. They're going after Armstrong, they're going after him hard and he has had to deal with these questions for over a decade. I can see why some people feel he's been singled out given how dirty the field was back then, and you do kind of feel they won't rest until they get their man.

What I will say is I don't like how USADA and other people/organisations have come out and said his decision not to contest the charges is an indication of guilt. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. Personally I have plenty of doubts given what I've read, but I still want to see the evidence before I draw a definite conclusion one way or the other.

There's also the issue of stripping the titles from him. Again, he hasn't been found guilty yet going by the punishment you'd think he had been. Who do the titles go to now? Good luck finding the next clean cyclist, iirc the rest of the top 5 in nearly every year Armstrong won has either tested positive or admitted to doping.

Here's an article I read the other day about this anyway, it's a decent read.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cressa121

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

Didn't know that it was often prescribed in cancer patients. That's fair enough

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

I think that would be the case had they gone and tested Armstrong's samples specifically. I believe the French lab that conducted the tests used many samples from the '99 tour, and they didn't know which athlete they were testing as the samples only had a reference number and not the name. It wasn't until a journalist got his hands on the results and matched the code on the sample to the code on Armstrong's registration forms that this got out.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

It's possible. I know a number of the witnesses have been implicated in doping themselves and have been offered reduced sentences if they testify against Lance, which doesn't sit too well with me. A number also fell out with him so could have an axe to grind. Hincapie would be the most compelling witness imo, as they are, or were, close friends throughout Armstrong's career. I don't see what he'd stand to gain by lying


d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

---

I do see where you're coming from. They're going after Armstrong, they're going after him hard and he has had to deal with these questions for over a decade. I can see why some people feel he's been singled out given how dirty the field was back then, and you do kind of feel they won't rest until they get their man.

What I will say is I don't like how USADA and other people/organisations have come out and said his decision not to contest the charges is an indication of guilt. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. Personally I have plenty of doubts given what I've read, but I still want to see the evidence before I draw a definite conclusion one way or the other.

There's also the issue of stripping the titles from him. Again, he hasn't been found guilty yet going by the punishment you'd think he had been. Who do the titles go to now? Good luck finding the next clean cyclist, iirc the rest of the top 5 in nearly every year Armstrong won has either tested positive or admitted to doping.

Here's an article I read the other day about this anyway, it's a decent read.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport

---

Great article. Interesting that many of the comments despite disputing the writers assessment of his character then went on to confirm it when relating their own dealings with Armstrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

---

Actually I think you're the one verging on the "double-standard." My views haven't even come close it.

You are defending Armstrong with "he never failed a test," therefore the dozens of associates claiming he cheated are lying and it's a huge conspiracy against him.

I've never claimed Margarito did not load his gloves. I only know that there's no evidence he ever fought with loaded gloves.

I find it hard to understand how you can so confidently see one man as guilty and the other innocent? Is it really as simple as - you like Armstrong but dislike Margarito?

If you put everything in context and the cyclists are/were all doping then you can't take Lance's titles because if everyone is doing it then it's not cheating it's merely leveling the playing field. Everyone that finished close to Lance in those 7 years was caught doping after those wins so who do the titles go to?

In baseball there is even more grey area as steroids & hgh weren't even illegal when McGuire & Sosa were hitting all those homeruns so how can you punish those guys if they weren't breaking any rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

---

Actually I think you're the one verging on the "double-standard." My views haven't even come close it.

You are defending Armstrong with "he never failed a test," therefore the dozens of associates claiming he cheated are lying and it's a huge conspiracy against him.

I've never claimed Margarito did not load his gloves. I only know that there's no evidence he ever fought with loaded gloves.

I find it hard to understand how you can so confidently see one man as guilty and the other innocent? Is it really as simple as - you like Armstrong but dislike Margarito?

---

Disliking Margarito would be understandable, he at the very least tried to use loaded gloves against Mosely, which could have caused injury or death.

Armstrong doping would have physically harmed people how?

Of course Margarito is going to beheld with my scorn... 'fair' or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

;)

---

Actually I think you're the one verging on the "double-standard." My views haven't even come close it.

You are defending Armstrong with "he never failed a test," therefore the dozens of associates claiming he cheated are lying and it's a huge conspiracy against him.

I've never claimed Margarito did not load his gloves. I only know that there's no evidence he ever fought with loaded gloves.

I find it hard to understand how you can so confidently see one man as guilty and the other innocent? Is it really as simple as - you like Armstrong but dislike Margarito?

---

Disliking Margarito would be understandable, he at the very least tried to use loaded gloves against Mosely, which could have caused injury or death.

Armstrong doping would have physically harmed people how?

Of course Margarito is going to beheld with my scorn... 'fair' or not.

---

Nice... I'll give you that. ;)

Doesn't mean any are less guilty though. I'm torn on Armstrong, I'm not niave when it comes to drugs in sport but he's been such an inspiration to so many, I don't like the thought of him cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Doesn't mean any are less guilty though. I'm torn on Armstrong, I'm not niave when it comes to drugs in sport but he's been such an inspiration to so many, I don't like the thought of him cheating.

---

Yeah that was my point. Whether you are a complete scumbag or an inspiration - cheating is cheating.

USADA just making this a witch hunt. He passed every single test that has caught everyone else that's ever cheated. This obsession with "no one can be that good" hurts the sport more than anything. If a man beats cancer and puts in hard work and achieves let it be. If they had "such an amass of evidence" where has it been for all these years he was winning? Were they holding it and saying "lets wait 10 years and then SPRING IT ON HIM!" Seriously? If the guy has been through this turmoil for that long and it's effecting his family too (we have no idea what his children are put through or his wife for that matter because of all this stress and scrutiny) at some point you just have to realize that this company is NOT gonna give up until they prove he's cheated. Despite passing every drug test and doing everything within the rules they are gonna keep going at him till they can say "HAH! HE CHEATED! SEE NO ONE IS THAT GOOD!!" It really shows the hypocrisy, they may as well test everyone else that tested clean and lost if the drug testing was SOO bad that it caught everyone but him over all those years maybe they should be taking ALL the cases to court of everyone that's ever tested clean. They won't, but they are testing him cause he won. Pretty stupid if you ask me. he's been fighting for 10 years and despite them not being able to prove anything in all that time, they come up with new stuff over and over again to bring a case up again. At some point people realize that these people are never gonna give up till they get you, and whether they do or not is irrelevant it's a fight you can either choose to keep fighting for years and years and years despite the point of relevancy and continue to put yourself and your family through this unneeded stress or you can move on with your life content with your accomplishments and leave them with nothing left to chase. I'd take the latter clean or not. I know everyone says "Id fight! id never stop fighting!" but until you've been through the years of turmoil and scrutiny he has and watched what it put your family through, you have no idea what it's like or what he's been through. So I applaud him saying "screw it" with them.

It proves their hypocrisy and witch hunt mentality more than it does his guilt.

The only question for me is which interest do this people represent? Why they are making all this propaganda and witch hunt? I mean if it is against the sportsmen from oder countries i will understand it, but just to destroy the lives of your own "showmen" it's somewhat strange for me... They must get something really big for going after it with such a zeal. Guys maybe we are oversleeping something really important here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majesty

USADA just making this a witch hunt. He passed every single test that has caught everyone else that's ever cheated. This obsession with "no one can be that good" hurts the sport more than anything. If a man beats cancer and puts in hard work and achieves let it be. If they had "such an amass of evidence" where has it been for all these years he was winning? Were they holding it and saying "lets wait 10 years and then SPRING IT ON HIM!" Seriously? If the guy has been through this turmoil for that long and it's effecting his family too (we have no idea what his children are put through or his wife for that matter because of all this stress and scrutiny) at some point you just have to realize that this company is NOT gonna give up until they prove he's cheated. Despite passing every drug test and doing everything within the rules they are gonna keep going at him till they can say "HAH! HE CHEATED! SEE NO ONE IS THAT GOOD!!" It really shows the hypocrisy, they may as well test everyone else that tested clean and lost if the drug testing was SOO bad that it caught everyone but him over all those years maybe they should be taking ALL the cases to court of everyone that's ever tested clean. They won't, but they are testing him cause he won. Pretty stupid if you ask me. he's been fighting for 10 years and despite them not being able to prove anything in all that time, they come up with new stuff over and over again to bring a case up again. At some point people realize that these people are never gonna give up till they get you, and whether they do or not is irrelevant it's a fight you can either choose to keep fighting for years and years and years despite the point of relevancy and continue to put yourself and your family through this unneeded stress or you can move on with your life content with your accomplishments and leave them with nothing left to chase. I'd take the latter clean or not. I know everyone says "Id fight! id never stop fighting!" but until you've been through the years of turmoil and scrutiny he has and watched what it put your family through, you have no idea what it's like or what he's been through. So I applaud him saying "screw it" with them.

It proves their hypocrisy and witch hunt mentality more than it does his guilt.

---

Bottom Line, you have it Spot On

I find the whole thing a miscarriage of justice and a complete waste of money.

WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or or at least even caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

If I had the power, I'd fire Tygart. He's a fuck'n media whole.

This about sums it up for me, too.


Rick Reilly: Armstrong still worth honoring - ESPN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

This about sums it up for me, too.


Rick Reilly: Armstrong still worth honoring - ESPN

---

That is a VERY Dumb article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

This about sums it up for me, too.


Rick Reilly: Armstrong still worth honoring - ESPN

---

That is a VERY Dumb article.

---

It says the author still supports Lance, although it's possible he may be guilty of taking PED's. No different than what a lot of other Armstrong supporters are saying.