There you go again reframing it as a pro or anti Lance belief issue. You don't have to be pro-Lance to question whether a proper and fair process has been followed to convict him and therefore whether the conviction is sound. There are plenty of people that Courts rule to be not guilty because proper process was not followed and a conviction would be unsound, even though the probability is that the accused did commit the offence. And plenty of the most famous miscarriages of justice in this country have been where that was not followed.
And if you have been reading this thread at all you will see that USADA have completely blanked out for example in Appendix 2 the sworn statement backed up by his 279 pages of medical notes by his oncologist saying that he never asked Lance about his taking PEMs, there is nothing in his notes recording that he was asked and what his reply was and that if such a question had been asked it would have, as a matter of course, have been recorded in his medical notes by whichever doctor had asked the question. Nor his oncologists sworn affidavit that says his bloods were routinely measured as part of his post cancer monitoring until late 2001 and that there was no evidence from them of EPO use which would have been detectable (those same bloods having been used to monitor his response to EPO injections as part of his cancer treatment). Nor the sworn affidavits from Tygart and Catlin that certainly up to 2001 they had never had an adverse finding against Armstrong and that if he had used EPO they would have detected it. Now I am quite happy that having presented all the evidence it is argued that on balance its in favour of his having doped. But to miss out all the evidence against doping, including USADA's own sworn evidence from its CEO, just smacks of polemic not a balanced judgement. And that again, just for the avoidance of doubt, is not for pro-Lance purposes but to illustrate the severe motives and process problems that exist.
