I wish Lance Armstrong was clean as a whistle, but the evidence against it is insurmounatble. Cycling, like weightlifting and "professional wrestling", has always been a sport where steroids provide a significant advantage.

Unfortunately, this is a case where they can't prove he used steroids, but all of the team mates on the cycling teams he raced for testified that he did. So, who ya gonna believe; Lance or a dozen different team mates that raced with him?

Kinda reminds me of the Salem Witch trials. There's no direct evidence, but a whole he11uva lot of circumstantial evidence. And, if that was good enough to drown or burn a woman in 1640 for being a witch, then why isn't it good enough to strip Lance Armstrong of all his medals today?

Evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence doesn't come about on it's own any more than direct evidence does. There can only be so many co-incidences before one stops and says "Hey, wait a minute". All the co-incidences beyond that simply serve to shake the credibility of the accused. No one can have co-incidence working for them.