Well he did try a Ryan giggs super injunction which didn't work so all I can see is the guy trying to avoid everything.
Clearing your name should be number I priority. Seems keeping things under wraps is his main aim.
Equally deciding not to answer charges is not a defence in the western world!! And evidence is usually presented at a trial!! What choice was left? And they can't present evidence that is integral to other ongoing trials!!! He unfortunately has lost his presumed innocent status but deciding to accept charges!!
And as many people keeping saying 'he never tested positive' - can we accept that many drugs cheats have tested negative through their careers!! Marion jones 150 - 200 negative tests and she confessed to doping through out her career!!!
We have to accept that testing is the best we have and all we have and as any biochemist will tell you it is by no means definitive!!!, therefore if we want to keep sports clean we have to look at other evidence!!
I heard something similar that basically there is no one to award the wins to.
All second place finishers have testedvely at some point as have all but one 3rd place finishers...
lets hops the facts are released publicly.
as it appears that during his time his competitors were also "cheating" so it was a level playing field?
Personally I think that this year's games (and TdF) was in a good year. Like most cat and mice (cops and robbers) dynamics sometimes the badies are ahead and sometimes the goodies. It appears that right now there is newer testing technology rather than doping technology, though this will again change in the ebb and flow.
I must admit, I was surprised at Armstrongs withdrawal to fight the charges. Let's be honest here, we have one of the biggest sporting icons in the world who has faced down cancer to go on and win 7 tours and who has built an amazingly successful charity on the back of his astonishing determination and ability to overcome the odds. That can never be taken away from him regardless of the outcome.
His whole image has been about not giving in, so for him to make this decision regardless of how long it has been going on does smack of guilt. I would have expected him to fight until the ends of the earth to clear his name.
We're not talking Dwain Chambers here, this is a man who has tasted unparalleled success and enjoys almost god like status in cycling on which everything since has been built. His name, his charity and his legend. If as he constantly maintains he is innocent and the victim of a witch hunt then you do not throw everything you have achieved away no matter the burden on your private life. You fight tooth and nail to clear your name - unless you are guilty.
Also because of the repurcussions this will have on the sport, I don't think the governing body of cycling would pursue someone of the status of Lance Armstrong so vigorously if they weren't completely certain they had overwhelming evidence to support their decision.
Very odd and completely at odds with everything LA as a person has stood for thus far.
As an aside though, I do agree that there is absolutely no point in drug testing if the results on the athletes then have absolutely no bearing on any given case instigated by the authorities 
The impression I get is that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. He is probably guilty, but equally he knows that most of his fellow cyclists are guilty too, so he's weighed up whether to withdraw with some sort of dignity intact or to drag everyone through the mud with him, leaving the destruction of his and their reputations as his biggest legacy. Withdrawing as he has will mean he may be able to salvage some of his reputation in the longer term (in theory at least).
I am not sure what more there is to debate.
Post 13 details what one of the most resected sports newspapers thinks.
Ok it is owned by the same parent that owns the TdF, but that just adds to the credability.
If what they say is true, he did take drugs (like many others at the time) but he cannot be found to have cheated as the "A" samples are long gone.
The impression I get is that he has been very clever gets a guilty in his absence with a non contest.
Will always be a did he or didn't he, the mugs will believe him and the rationale people will always class him as a drug cheat.
If Lance Armstrong was clean then he beat drug cheats over seven tours! Amazing!
If Lance Armstrong was not clean he still beat other drug cheats over seven tours! Amazing!
P.S. My opinions are my own and I understand Lance Armstrong maintains his innocence. No charges brought have been formally tested in court.
They would have been except for the fact that LA was crafty and tried to stop it ever happening by saying "ah I'm fed up with all this", hoping that that will be the end of it and it will be his word against the authorities.
Hopefully the authorities won't let it lie.
Whilst it bears no relation to winning 7 tours, I remember watching Ben Johnson win the Olympic 100m in 9.79 years ago and thinking how amazing it was. Then he was declared a drug cheat and stripped of it and his amazing feat quickly faded.
So will Armstrongs if it is proven once and for all he was a doper. Regardless of what people think of the ADA and their bulldozer methods, they must be absolutely cast iron certain their investigation is water tight as they simply would not pursue this against someone who is almost untouchable if their was any possibility they could end up with egg on their faces.