Originally Posted by alnorth
You almost dont even need the testimony.
The basic case against Armstrong, without witnesses, and without a positive drug test, is this:
The tour des france is an incredibly long race. Several days. Despite the race lasting several days of racing time, the winner always wins by minutes.
During Armstrong's time, we know that EVERY SINGLE ONE of his top rivals cheated. They were all caught, red-handed, no doubt about it, proven, everyone Armstrong raced against was a cheater. When cycling was cleaned up and enforcement was massively increased and cyclists had to race clean, race times ballooned to a huge extent, by several hours.
It is simply not reasonable to believe that Armstrong could have won those races, clean, against a field full of cheaters. You can say maybe he had to do what he had to do because everyone else was breaking the rules, but he's a liar.
That's all well and good. But I don't cycle competitively for one reason and one reason alone:
Yeah, probably not your first guess huh? Have you ever sat on one of these things doing 35 MPH in France?
Sure the dude had a distinct advantage but that has been disclosed for a long time. Sheryl Crow told me in 1997. Seriously, Lance Armstrong is the king of the TdF because he has but one schwetty ball. Imagine if you will just how deeply you could thrust your wife if you dropped from a 54" waist to a 34", for instance. This is precisely the same benefit provided to Armstrong by virtue of his brave Halfstration.
Judge less, neuter more.