Re: the TDF, so do we think that its near impossible for someone to win it who is clean?
What does that say about this years winner, who so openly said he was clean? Is he that good if he can beast dozens of dopers?
MMmm?
but you miss the point. He will not be shown a drugs "cheat" as to have cheaten you A sample has to fail a drugs test thenyour B sample.
So he might have cheated the way Schumacker did in 1996 by barging Hill of the road but as that was not proven he still holds the 1996 championship.
In LA's case there appear to be a load of team-mates who, for the sake of their own protection, are saying he cheated with us.
Ask yourself what is different about this allegation to all the others lance has rebuffed.
Could it be that this time what he says will be under oath in a us court of law, under the threat of perjury.
But the whole pouint is that the evidence has not been presented, but LA has been condemned already.
If the evidence is made public and does show conclusively that he was a cheat, fine erase his achievemnets from the annals of history.but it won't ever be that clean cut.He hasn't failed a dope test in the proscribed manner.It seems that he may have failed some 'B' tests, years after the event, but he has never failed an A and B test in the period after a race.Therefore the only evidence against him can be the testimony of a dozen or so convicted and condemned saddo drug cheats who for reasons that are no doubt apparent to them (and whoever is pulling their strings) want to bring him down.
He's not failed a drug test per se and so the only evidence is circumstantial and hearsay.And if that ius enough to bring him down, its a sad day for all of us.
Apparently average power outputs and speeds on the tour have declined since the early naughties suggesting that doping is less prevalent. So I'd say it's now entirely possible for someone to win it clean.
And Wiggins didn't win it by being superhuman and wiping the floor with everyone, it was a brilliant tactical/team performance. Having said that only a fool would bet on a professional cyclist being clean. 
And sad to say but if you compare this years tour with some of the classics from the late 90s early 00s it was relatively dull with little attacking. Hate to say it but purely from an entertainment point of view it's good to see Contador back for the Vuelta.
Everyone accepts science advances and samples may be retested as positive years later. The issue here is we have an uneasy "guilt by default because you will not defend against charges where the evidence has yet to be presented" versus "a witch hunt", against a backdrop of a dirty period in the sport
The evidence hasn't been presented because LA hasn't contested the charges and the case againstthe other parties is ongoing. Once the other charges in the same case have been sorted the evidence will be made public.
If you take EPO and I see you take it but you then pass a drugs test you're still a doper. An interesting insight into doping in sport here. If the anti doping authorities required a failed test in order to press charges (regardless of other available evidence) then it would be a very sad day for sport. The dopers are usually one step ahead of the authorities and you have to be pretty unlucky to get caught (if this wasn't the case there wouldn't be any doping). Plenty of athletes have been caught not through testing but by having drugs found in their hotel room etc.
And he hasn't simply been charged with "doping" anyway.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
As you can see from the summary of charges your (completely subjective and uncorroborated) assumptions about those willing to testify against him are way off the mark. They are not all cyclists for starters.
There is no "witch hunt". The USADA are doing their job, they would have nothing to gain from pursuing LA if they didn't have a very solid case against him.
A lot of history here.
yes power and recovery are down (the 2 things drugs can help). So we see fewer attacks with less effect. This is why Tours will be more "boring" than before.
The Vuelta course appears to try to address that with fewer climbs but mountain top finishes with time bonuses.
Yes, that was exactly my point (hence it being "sad to say"). 
Apparently USADA are releasing their evidence against Armstrong today.
So far, George Hincapie's released the following statement coming clean, no doubt there'll be more to come today.