Originally Posted by Ben Carufel
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?
the two have nothing in common
Originally Posted by swimmer
It accomplishes what the mission statement of the USADA says. To defend clean athletes.
And yea, you'll be showing something wearing the yellow bracelet
what the USADA did in no way shape or form help clean athletes. all it did was waste millions of our tax dollars. what actually cleaned up athletes was more likely changes/advances in drug testing procedures off times. making it all but impossible to escape detection.
yes I'll be proud to wear my livestrong bracelet!!
just a wild guess... but you probably are in the camp that favors keeping pot as class 1 narcotic and locking folks up for pot too.
this has gone beyond if Lance doped or not. who gives a rats ass... if he did this should have been taken care off 10-12 years ago. it's the beyond unfair process reaching back over 12 years that I'm most insulted about.
an 8 year statue of limitations evidently means nothing to USADA when following rules. the same for all the drug tests given to cyclist for the last 12 years. it all means NOTHING when an agency like USADA has an agenda to meet.