- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
VeloCity said:Purely speculation, but by specifically naming Armstrong (among others of course, but obviously Armstrong is the big cheese) so publicly without having substantive material to back up their allegations, you'd think they'd just be setting themselves up for libel/slander suits from the Armstrong crowd. Which makes me wonder if they've come forth knowing that they're back is protected, ie they know that there is substantive material that can be produced to back up their claims? And does Armstrong know it too (or at least suspect it), which is why he's not going after them legally?
Who says that there is no substantive material?
A simple calendar, diary, plane ticket, parking ticket, or cafe receipt can all substantiate a lot.
We already have faxes from Haven to Fuentes. What if there were a cancelled check or two with Ferrari?
Aside from which, the eyewitness testimony is far more substantiating than any single piece of evidence. The eyewitness can tell us what really happened.
The eyewitness can explain how the EPO got in the pee that got in the vial.
'I saw Lance inject during the Tour on Day X, Y and Z.'
We have the eyewitness testimony that removes any doubt about the source of the EPO. Not just reasonable doubt, but any dought.
Dave.