Sorry, wasn't trying to answer for kurt, just trying to interpret what he was saying

True about Heras, but the reason that he kept those other Vuelta wins was because there was no evidence specifically for those races, which may in the end be true of Armstrong vis a vis his Tour wins.
So even if it's obvious that he was doping during that period (which it is to anyone who follows the sport and which imo is going to become common knowledge to the general public soon enough), if there's nothing specifically linking him to doping during those Tours - if there is no retro positive Tour sample or a confession of doping during a specific Tour, etc - I can't see how the UCI could strip his Tour wins when they haven't done the same for Heras, Vino, Valverde, etc.
I suppose the question is, would it be enough if in the end 3 or 4 or 5 USPS riders testified that they saw Armstrong doping during this or that Tour to "justify" the UCI stripping his title for those specific Tours?
And even if they did strip all 7 Tour titles, is anyone going to consider Zulle, Ullrich, Beloki, Kloden, and Basso as the "rightful" winners? We're just as cynical about them as we are about Armstrong. I have no sympathy for the UCI whatsoever, but I think sorting all of this out is going to become pretty damn messy.