i read the whole reasoned decision thing from the usada. i never used to be at all interested in cycling till a few years back. it's quite an interesting team, tactical, mental and physical sport.
a few things struck me in and about the report and it's surroundings.
1) there is no scientific evidence. they very occasionally allude to scientific evidence but didn't really say they had any, let alone provide any.
2) the case is built almost entirely on what other people have said. nothing else.
2a) nonetheless the case is quite strong.
3) they have many occasions of terribly flawed logic
exhibit a) person A sees something. he tells persons B and C.
person A swears he saw it. person B swears A told him he saw hit, person C also swears person A told him. That sequence is described as triple confirmation of the event occurring.
amazingly, they do this on more than one occasion, calling things doubly confirmed when it's just a person A and B.
exhibit b) they say that if people who confess have nothing to gain from the confession, their confession is worth more.
i assume this means that if people do have something to gain their confession is worth less.
they then proceed to say how all the confessors have had nothing to gain. which is blatantly wrong. writing books, tv appearances, reduced sentences, etc. there was lots to gain.
4) it's weird how as soon as he quit, lots of his ex team mates got caught. like they suddenly forgot how to avoid getting caught.
5) he's still quite good at triathlons.
6) it's a shame if it's true, and it appears to be true. i hope that his cancer charity doesn't suffer.
as i imagine others have said, it seems that it was indeed, not about the bike.
Updated Monthly Views (Top Countries)
2 hours ago