Originally Posted by _cy_
what is 100% for sure ... USADA has zero concrete evidence of doping. it's 100% based on testimony. which regardless of how may millions $$ USDA spent to build up. it's still testimony without any hard evidence.
Sooo hey, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of raping little boys. There was no hard evidence, just testimony. However, he was still convicted. You think he's innocent?
I'm not in any way saying that doping in cycling is akin to raping little boys, but it seems that if conviction based on multiple witnesses testifying works in one instance, it should work in another, right?