Quote:
Originally Posted by Big L
No one was willing to testify until they were busted themselves? Hmmm... That sounds really suspect. Face prosecution, or give us dirt on Armtsrong. 'In that case, he's dirty as they come'. 
Listen, sounds like everyone in the sport was doing it, but Armstrong had a foolproof way to beat the system, and now it's a vendetta, based on circumstantial evidence, and has been going on for a decade. No offense, but really does sound like a witch hunt to me. |
A) Few drug dealers are successfully prosecuted based on the testimony of village priests. It usually takes the testimony of a lawbreaker to catch a lawbreaker. And yes, not surprisingly, those testimonies do not come willingly. They offer them when they have no other choice.
B) Everyone was doing it is not a defense. Ever. Everyone speeds while driving at one time or another. That's not a valid reason to eliminate speed limits or penalties for speeding.
C) RE vendetta...if 1) as you suggest doping was widespread, and 2) there's a belief the biggest name in the sport is doing it, who the hell else would you prosecute first? The #4 guy?
I can understand not wanting to believe Armstrong was guilty. I have a harder time understanding "But even if he was guilty this is a witchhunt." Because if he was breaking the rules why shouldn't he be called on it? Where they may get into difficulty is if they take Armstrong's titles away, whom do they give them to? Doper #2?