Lance Armstrong Redux

There is something odd about this from. Tygart of the USADA:

"[If Armstrong had of] come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute [of limitations] should apply."

I am baffled as to how a suspect/defendants behavior changes the existence of a statute of limitations. Laws apply regardless of the horridness or perceived horridness of any specific perpetrator.

Clearly, Armstrong's refusal to continue to litigate the matter means that he is guilty of doping violations but there is something creepy about a regulatory agency flinging rules out the window because they don't like someone's attitude.

Lance Armstrong

His decision to not contest the USADA's case means that he has been or will shortly be found guilty of doping his way to victory, which is just sad. It was not a "witch hunt" because witches didn't exist and doping cyclists do. It may be an unfair process, as Judge Sparks put it "the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern." He, however, did not quash the process. Does the USADA have the power to strip Armstrong of his titles and ban him from racing? Not really. They need to prove to the UCI that they have the goods on Armstrong.

So what does it all mean? That some of the finest moments in international sport are now official tainted and that quite possibly the erstwhile greatest tour champion, Eddy is the greatest cyclist of all time, will lose all of his titles.

It is, all in all -- given that George Hincapie is rumored to be implicated in the doping, a very sad day for sport.

Wastes of Time and Money

Remember not that long ago when the Feds when after Lance Armstrong everyone predicted that he was curtains? Like every other inquiry into Armstrong's alleged use of PED the Feds found nothing. What's especially puzzling here is the question of why these guys and gals thought they could find a smoking gun when an insurance  company seeking to avoid paying out couldn't.