PpPete
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chandler's Ford
The crude summary is that you appear to defend Armstrong by saying that earlier riders have not been pursued therefore he should also escape with impunity.
Why? Toppling Armstrong is an excellent example that may clean up the pro cycling scene (as well as removing the influence of a toxic personality). Why waste time discussing earlier riders except as a diversionary tactic? What is your motive?
It's not even a good diversionary tactic.
Did Miguel Indurain spend the time since his retirement lying under oath, bullying former team-mates, making questionable payments etc to hide the truth?
The point that USADA have made is that LA's continued strong arm tactics to cover up his doping make the SoL inapplicable in his case. They have NOT set a general precedent for it to be torn up in every case.
If the Spanish anti-doping agency can show that MI used the same sort of tactics as LA to cover up his dopng they might just have a precedent in the USADA / LA. Otherwise the SoL continues to apply.