Originally Posted by Hoosier Red
And again, Armstrong was (in theory) presumed innocent and was free to challenge the evidence given by those who accused im. He is choosing not to challenge the assertions and because he's not challenging the evidence provided against him, he's found guilty.
I think the "presumed innocent" part is where you're wrong. In a presumed-innocent scenario, the accusers have to prove they're telling the truth. From everything I've read, the USADA accepted the accusations at face value and put the burden on Armstrong to prove the accusers were lying. And if all the passed drug tests aren't good enough, then what could possibly be?
A lot of us have hit this scenario at some point in life, even if it's a six-year-old being tattled on for spitwad-throwing, not saying I ever did such a thing... there's a dispute, the authority figure believes someone else over you, and short of inventing time travel so you can take them back to the time and place of the incident, there's nothing you can do about it.
To paraphrase an article I read, a drug test could
lie but people definitely do
Having said all that, I'm not proclaiming Armstrong innocent -- for him to dominate a sport while being the only clean one in the lead pack strains credulity -- but just taking a position on the process.