Casa said:
Actually I meant a different rider, such as Boonen or Pantani or Inudrain to name a few names.
So then why spend so much time singling out Americans if you admit that this happens everywhere?
It's tarnished by unproven "evidence" which leads to wholly different problem, how it's impossible for someone rumored to be doping to clear his or her name.
But getting back to what you said, you assume he had the best drugs so you spend your time harping on him (not just you but cycling fans in general) instead of realizing that if indeed they all dope then he surely could not have been the only one with access to the top stuff.
House, you want evidence?
Was the insulin and actovegin not evidence in waste bags? I believe USPS tacitly conceded this when they said a soigneur had diabetes.
Both products illegal.
House, you are asking for a "proven evidence" setting the benchmark so high as to be unreasonable. Judicial Inquiries and Royal Commissions make findings also, like a civil court, they are not held to a criminal court level of burden.
So, you want Armstrong to be afforded a level of burden akin to a criminal court, when his civil liberties are not being compromised?
Absurd.
If you wish to dope in 2008, you can dope, knowing, that inside your own home, with rights afforded to you wrt privacy, you could dope your **** off, and dispose of all evidence. There would be no evidence.
Do not you understand the regime you are actually promoting. You are promoting a see no evil do no evil regime which tacitly endorses doping. It gives riders carte blanche opportunities to dope from the inside of their own private home.
You want a level of evidence, that is just unreasonable, and promotes a culture of doping. There is no evidence in that scenario. You wilfully refuse to acknowledge the evidence that exists, and hide behind spurious defences like constitutional rights, which are not relevant considering a sporting case. For every doper like Armstrong, there is someone he denied rewards, like Bassons, Mcgee, Voeckler. Will you suggest Armstrong had a hand in not affording these riders human rights? That is stupid is not it, well, see how stupid your argument is.