Douglas C. Neidermeyer;2947616 Wrote:
> Say it ain't so.......
I wish Lance Armstrong was clean as a whistle, but the evidence against
it is insurmounatble. Cycling, like weightlifting and "professional
wrestling", has always been a sport where steroids provide a significant
Unfortunately, this is a case where they can't prove he used steroids,
but all of the team mates on the cycling teams he raced for testified
that he did. So, who ya gonna believe; Lance or a dozen different team
mates that raced with him?
Kinda reminds me of the Salem Witch trials. There's no direct evidence,
but a whole he11uva lot of circumstantial evidence. And, if that was
good enough to drown or burn a woman in 1640 for being a witch, then why
isn't it good enough to strip Lance Armstrong of all his medals today?
Evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence doesn't come about on
it's own any more than direct evidence does. There can only be so many
co-incidences before one stops and says "Hey, wait a minute". All the
co-incidences beyond that simply serve to shake the credibility of the
accused. No one can have co-incidence working for them.