Bosco10 said:
Lance may have been able to keep some wins, but he refused to cooperate and said he was done with it. I think Lance didn't fully realize that the hammer was going to come down on him.
People should consider the reality of this situation - not the hype.
Hincapie is not a "good person" - he did what he had to do in legal pragmatism , and so is armstrong silent for the very same reason..
The reason armstrong refused to cooperate is unlike others on the team he was not granted federal immunity by the grand jury.
My view is - Armstrong realised the hammer WAS going to come down, and in that context the worst thing he could do is place himself in a position of potential subpoena under oath.
So he followed the legal imperative and pragmatics of the situation - to say nothing.
People should also consider the reality of such as Hincapies postion.
Far from helping the sport, he was put in a position of being given immunity in federal grand jury. In case anyone is unfamiliar with that - once granted immunity you cannot take the fifth amendment. You tell the complete truth or
If you stay silent you got to jail - As in Anderson case in the bonds trial
If you fail to tell the truth you go to jail. As in marion jones case.
So Hincapie told the truth as legal pragmatism and imperative forced him to - and for the very same reason Lance kept quiet. Hincapie would not have confessed EVER either with the potential for conspiracy to defraud still possible for him. Take that away with immunity, and only then can you judge Lance on the basis of whether he owns up or not.
Once owning up in grand jury it was probably apparent that sooner or later the truth would come out by either leak or as part of a hearing, so rather than be trapped in a lie, hincapie owned up the minimum , to get off scott free with Tygart - even allowed to ride the TdF after clearly owning up! (otherwise why was he dropped from the olympic team?)
So before anyone vindicates Hincapie this "nice guy" - consider - he saw what was done to betsy and emma , and said nothing, did nothing , he did not exercise his duty to speak, and his conscience was not upset enough to move on because of integrity- he carried on to help lance to more wins both knowingly and willingly and making a lot of money in the process. Conspiracy during and after the fact. An entire career doping, and is allowed to retire with his illgotten gains.
In summary Cycling scapegoat lynching needs replacing with euqitable justice by an organisation that knows what that word means - and that discounts all of the current organisations involved. Most of all UCI.
6 month bans? 2 year bans? 4 year? life? - whatever - provided the justice is handed out impartially - the tarriff can be what you like. Although - WADA are right in saying shorter punishments are more likely to roll back omerta. BUt that means shorter for EVERYONE or NOONE. not just "nice" people.