Tour de France

Sweet. Hope it sticks.

What Armstrong argues for is special treatment from the USADA for being successful, it's wrong, and his allegation that USADA is some sort of fly-by-night witch-hunt organization is bizarre & damaging to American sport.

The editorial's author notes a critical fact - Armstrong asked for this USADA investigation. What he doesn't like is that they found sufficient evidence to bring charges, stating that he looked forward to vindication from the USADA. It's not their fault they went another way based on their investigation.

I've seen some depressing appeals online in the wake of this - that Armstrong's charity work is too important for him to be sullied by such an investigation, that the government should cut USADA's funding because of it, etc. All the wrong morals. It demonstrates the importance of Livestrong to Armstrong as a way of creating public bias against investigating him. Saying you're against Armstrong because of his doping has gotten emotionally linked to being against helping cancer patients among some people.

The real danger for Armstrong IMO is if USADA flips one or more of the docs/trainers accused of similar shenanigans along with him.

Armstrong's Endgame

A longtime friend of his who wrote about his comeback and covered his career, Bill Strickland, turns to face the fact that Armstrong's most likely guilty. From a little over a year ago, but nicely written.

I THOUGHT I'd stop being a fan, hate him too much to appreciate him. That's what we're told, that we must either admire him or alternately despise and pity him. And I do: I admire him and despise him and pity him—for the years of lying as much as the cheating—and I'm enraged and morose, and I think he owes us something and he should just disappear, and I could keep going like this and some days have. Can you imagine that? A 46-year-old guy all twisted up because of the ugly way a cyclist did beautiful things on a bike?

I don't know how you'll feel. I don't know, if you're not already there, what might lead you to believe that Lance Armstrong doped. It wasn't Floyd Landis for me, or the federal investigation, or any public revelation. My catalyst was another one of those statements that was never said by someone I never talked with. It was not from one of Armstrong's opponents. It was not from anyone who will gain any clemency by affirming it under oath.

It was an admission that doping had occurred, one disguised so it could assume innocence but unmistakable to me in meaning. The moment I received it felt strangely like a relief, and after all these years unreal and apart from what was happening, like those odd instants that sometimes immediately follow the death of someone you love, when grief is eclipsed by gratitude that the suffering has ended.

Italians find a $465,000 payment in 2006 from Armstrong to pro-doping Dr. Michelle Ferrari, who is banned for life by the Italian Cycling Federation. Anyone found to have worked with Ferrari faces suspension from cycling within Italy.

Armstrong is going to regret the stridency of his previous denials as things move along.

On a more upbeat note, if anyone's on Twitter @tweetersagan is a laugh-out-loud Peter Sagan parody feed. Whoever's running it is a genius.

Watching an excellent stage 8 on Eurosport today; coverage is so much better than NBC Sports' US coverage.

Frank Schleck tests positive for a diuretic, leaves Le Tour, denies doping. The positive hit in question may be questionable and have non-doping causes.

Totally could be. But it also seems extremely odd; the Schlecks have been adamantly anti-doping, so it's a shock if it confirms. I don't buy him being "poisoned" for a minute, though.