Sykotyk;1255387 wrote:Look, the rules of doping are you're testing, if you're caught, you're punished. You don't get to 'pass the test' but the teacher still gives you an F anyways.
If the tests are insufficient, then the USADA (and WADA for that matter) need better tests. And the rules of testing are the A & B samples. You can't test a B sample if the A sample was clean. That's not the way the system works. B samples only get tested in the event of a failed A test when you can be present (with counsel) when the B sample is opened. That's why that case was never considered legit. They (the testers) went against the entire rules of how and when the B sample is tested. Who knows whether that was ever even his sample. They had no authority to open it or need to test it.
According to the USADA/WADA standards (i.e., the hundreds of tests), he was clean.
An officer can't pull you over and say "Even though my radar gun said you were doing 65 in a 65, I'm CERTAIN you were speeding before you came around that bend, here's your ticket". How exactly do you fight that? That's what Lance has been trying to fight for years. There is no 'proof' he can give to negate that claim. It's impossible. And it has been a witch hunt. The assumption being everyone else was dirty so he HAD to be dirty.
That's the key. If one knows EXACTLY what the terms of testing are, and nobody is allowed to go outside those terms, one can figure ways to beat the testing. Thats why MLB and NFL players assns negotiate "to the letter" exactly what the testing paramaters are/will be so they can get their experts to figure out how to beat the testing. ala Barry Bonds/BALCO etc. the wealthy players and/or their sponsors have the money and incentive to always stay one step ahead of the testing. Armstrong--like many others--had (alleged) positive tests but they were done outside the protocols, so "didn't count".
