I saw this posted and on the surface I understand her opinion. But here’s where she got it wrong:
1) WADA made the rules and before Lance 2.0 arrived they already stated you could be convicted of non-analytical infractions. Lance knew this.
2) people are convicted everyday based on circumstantial evidence incl eye witness testimony.
3) if @tyler Hamilton is correct, Lance did fail a test. Plus we have ’99 samples and suspicious bio-passport data
Look, USADA was heavy handed, but they didn’t create new rules just for Lance. If you choose to believe that all the evidence is wrong, ok. But the argument that new rules were created just to catch Lance is true. Further, everyone can’t be lying, can they? If you love Lance, let him go…if he was honest, he’ll come back to you, if not, then he never was…