Quote Originally Posted by funk-like View Post
A friend of mine lives in Atlanta. His wife's sister is married to one of Lance's former teammates. I won't name him here. His wife's sister spent time with the US Postal team in Spain, while they trained. My friend's wife spent a couple of weeks there one summer. Lance is not defending himself, because he is guilty. He had some great doctors.
Not sure if this was intended to be sarcasm, but if it was, it was pretty good!

If not, it highlights the quality of the "evidence" against Lance: Nothing more than hearsay which would not even get heard in a court of law in any democracy on the planet. The USADA certainly had no credible evidence against him, just a lot of sore losers.

Did he dope? I really don't know, but you used to be innocent until "proven" guilty. In criminal court that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which would likely be absent given that all the witnesses would be thrown out and there is no physical evidence. The civil court standard of "on a balance of probability", I would think that a lot of unsubstantiated verbal evidence against hundreds of negative tests would give balance of probability to the side of "not guilty".