jsinclair wrote: this whole process is pointless and should not be pursued. Cycling as a sport would be better off just moving on and ignoring him.
I agree. Wouldn't the time and money be better spent trying to determine cyclists who are currently doping (or those in the near future) rather than go back 10-13 years to finally "nail" Lance. What is the point? I thought USADA wants to stop current doping. What is the point in trying to go back and "change history"? The damage has already been done. Try to change cycling now.
And the worst part is, by digging up this dirt from an era of cycling that has faded away, it will undoubtedly be associated with cycling today, just as the sport's reputation is recovering.
My position is that if LA hasn't been found guilty and the case was thrown out, it should have ended there. Sure, it's possible that he cheated, but if it can't be proven, it's almost as frivolous as pulling any random guy off the street, accusing him of a murder and then throwing him in jail for life just because he fits the profile of a killer. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss, especially in a case like this, where if they just let him fade away into the history books, a new chapter of clean cycling could be allowed to continue. It's somewhat entertaining to watch all these armchair lawyers who talk as if they're absolutely certain if someone is guilty, even though thousands of hours of expertise failed to draw a case concrete enough.
Unfortunately, organizations like USADA operate on a presumption of guilt (as shown by their immediate suspension), rather than innocent until proven guilty, and as such, even though a court might not accept the evidence of these anonymous witnesses with questionable crediblity, there's nothing stopping them from doing it. I would be very surprised if they lost their case, as it just seems that their standards of evidence are not as solid as an actual court. If their mandate is truly to look to the future and prevent doping, then one could argue that punishing a past offender acts as a deterrent to anyone who even considers doping, which we know isn't true in the real world (Example: look at how useful the implication of harsh punishments, such as death sentences have been in reducing murder rates in the U.S.)
Bottom line: no one is going to win from this case being dug up and given the spotlight. The guys who will get their Tour titles won't experience the glory of standing on the podium at the Champs-Elysses (which is a large part of it) and won't have them considered "real" wins.