He may be a jerk, an a-hole, etc., but don't you still need to have proof other than the word of those who were caught cheating? This reminds me of what happened to Gary Condit. Did he cheat on his wife, yes, but that didn't make him a killer. With no proof whatsoever, the implications abounded. Turns out, he didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty? Seems not anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using CurlTalk
Originally Posted by juanab


someone wrote this:


To quote someone (I don't remember who), if he was doping, Lance beat a bunch of fellow dopers. If he didn't dope, he still beat a bunch of dopers



it is odd to not actually have proof, tis kind of rude.