Roger Wilco wrote:
The thing is, for most of Armstrong's "reign", there was no way of testing for the things endurance athletes most commonly used at the time (EPO at first, then after EPO tests were finally developed more than a decade after it became common (!) autologous blood transfusions enhanced with micro-dosing EPO and testosterone).
No one contests that the doping industry is way ahead of the fighting-doping-industry.
But I don't think it's right to put specific samples into storage for them to be tested at a much later date when a test for up until then untestable substances becomes available. There has to be some sort of statute of limitations - and 13 years after the fact is way beyond that IMO. (Or why could Riis keep his Tour victory and even be the coach of teams participating in the tour?)
Everyone should be treated the same, and it's my impression that that's not the case here. Why treat proven dopers such as Hamilton and Landis like crown witnesses? Is what Armstrong allegedly did so much worse? He was lucky and didn't get caught - and that makes it worse?