USADA finally released their document on Lance. have not had a chance to read in detail. but here's the heart of the matter. from page 15 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/460432-10lede-usada-armstrong.html in other words ... NO hard evidence is needed to convict. sorry but testimony from proven liars and tainted witnesses don't count. think of the incredible pressure brought to bear on Lance's former teammates. most were given very favorable terms to allow them to retire. if there were any sanctions I've not seen any on current riders. unlike Lance, most riders don't have the financial means to defend themselves against someone with unlimited resources. Win or lose, threat of getting same treatment as Lance from USADA or District Attorney would automatically destroy their careers and/or end of careers. ANY testimony resulting from such threats are tainted!!! ---------------- IV. DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA’S CHARGES A. Introduction 1. Standard of Proof Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: ““[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti- Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.”” As noted in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the applicable standard of proof is typically ““clear and convincing evidence.”” In this case, the evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA’’s view, it establishes his doping beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by ““any reliable means.””28 This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test. It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have 28 Code, Art. 3.2. Page | 16 been established and many cases reflect this principle.29 It could not be otherwise because at any given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not detectable through laboratory testing.