I am not a fan of LA and never have been but I cannot help admire him for his achievements on Le Tour (up to his first retirement anyway!). And only Le Tour. I wish he had ridden the other majors.
But what happened to most Brits' sense of of fair play? Should he not remain innocent til proven guilty?
There are so many other ways of showing guilt other than a positive test - I refer you to the biological passport for instance, and that is to ignore the positives that have been swept aside as Reddragon points out.
As I said, the weight of circumstantial evidence is now so compelling that I'm amazed that anybody who has read it can give the man any credibility. That they do, is why the fans call anyone who now doubts LA a 'hater'.
The UCI drugs test scientist himself accepted that there was inconrovertible evidence of him doping in the 'exonnerating' enquiry into the 1999 retests. The frame of reference of the enquiry was unable to use the evidence though.