suburbanreuben":3alzsytk said:Which would require them to prove he doped, when they claim he doped, and that they had lost financially (which I doubt) as a result.
Advantage Armstrong...
No, the sponsor contested that they had to pay a $4.7 million bonus to Armstrong due to the rumours that existed back then that he doped. Armstrong took them to court and under oath stated that he never doped. Result is potential perjury.
As far as proving he doped, the testimony of eye witnesses is very much an accepted form of evidence in a court (in fact it seems to have convicted Jimmy Saville before any police action has been taken).
Not sure why people believe that there has to be a blood test to prove this when a key issue is that he was able to corrupt the tests either through use of masking agents, diuretics, using other peoples piss, hiding for the duration of the 'glow' period, using knowledge of the testers diaries, using back-dated exemptions or just paying to make the tests go away.
Advantage ex-sponsor
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/arm ... =text-only