Let's not forget he might have been on hormone replacement therapy... so that he could compete equally. Testosterone is necessary for that.

It's also possible that he didn't dope and that he's just tired of fighting a fight he can never win.

An international sports committee getting something wrong?  Never.... 

He may have cheated, but there's a sizable chance that he didn't.  

If he believed in himself and his(undoped) abilities, imho, he should have made a stand, even if it was a last stand.

A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand

Sometimes, even in the face of overwhelming odds and certain defeat, the battle must still be fought. Not for hope of a victory, but because it  must be fought.

His reasons for lying down and letting himself be kicked are solely his own.

It does not make sense if he was allowed to compete at the time after completing a drug test and being cleared.  If there were no drugs then, how could there be now?  Sounds really fishy and corrupt to me. He did not admit to using drugs, which is highly unlikely anyway, he just got tired of all the abuse and bullshit.  I probably would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.  He is a good man, leave him to hell alone.

You do know there IS NO political [or other] advantage to be had [for the UCI] in stripping a person's results years AFTER an event, not when the very act indicates some failing in the system at the time.  The results were/are done and dusted.  The only on-going result from 7 Tour victories is to Armstrong's bank balance.  The reason the issue has come to light NOW rather than then is clearly [a bit of] finger pointing and subsequent proficiency in testing methods.

Changes to drug restrictions obviously can't be retrospective.... but transgressions of then-current restrictions certainly can....as that appears to be the case here.

He's certainly not being victimized.....how many entrants got their bums kicked this year alone?

Well said Zu! I totally agree!

First off the USADA has absolutely zero authority to strip Lance of any of his Tour de France wins nor anything else except perhaps his 2000 Olympic bronze medal. The UCI is the international governing body of cycling and in fact has required the USADA to present it's evidence to them and they will decide what, if anything, will be done regarding Lance's Tour de France and other cycling titles.

Secondly Lance has never failed a drug test nor has any of these charges ever been proven in a court of law. All Lance did was not agree to give up his legal rights and have his case settled via binding arbitration by an arbiter of the USADA's choosing. If the USADA had a legitimate case against Lance then they would have no compunction against proving it in a court of law. The fact that they haven't done so proves to me that the USADA has no legitimate case against Armstrong and is left with nothing but innuendo and supposition.

Refusing to agree to arbitration from an organization that has zero authority in the sport of cycling is nowhere near an admission of guilt, it's simply a refusal to participate in a farce. As far as giving up is concerned let's first see if the USADA even bothers to present its case to the UCI. If it does I doubt Lance will not take the opportunity to defend himself.

The only evidence they have is testimony of people that were actually caught doping with the same stuff they've accused him of not only using, but doling out to them in the first place.  He passed the same tests they failed.

Bullshit.

That said, no one fights the USADA and wins.  That there's a fight means they've already been assumed guilty.  All Armstrong could do to help himself is "confess" in return for fewer sanctions.  His former buddies that got caught already used him as their way out of punishment.  Hamilton got off with just his Olympic medal being taken away, something the IOC would have done anyway, and did do later.  It also helps his book sales if Armstrong is disgraced.  Landis is in a similarly beneficial situation, no comparable action on the part of the ADA against him.  Armstrong has no bigger fish to fry.

A reasonable aside:  Statisticians have published work in significant publications calling into question the entire doping process for making decisions from shoddy statistical inference.  This stems from the fact that doctors and lawyers generally have horrid understanding of advanced statistics, and yet they are using statistics to back their judgement and their decisions. It's commonly called the prosecutor's fallacy.  

Here is an article about one such piece published in Nature .  Unfortunately the Nature article itself is behind the paywall.  I don't follow the sport, so maybe they've improved their standards and knowledge since the article was published a few years ago. 

The legitimacy of their testing process and the seemingly witch-hunt like zeal they've gone after Armstrong for years are both giant red flags to taking the agency at their word though.  At least in my mind.  

Like the others, I would happily buy the man a beer, for his charitable work and for what he went through, if I ever had the chance.  

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, Wiz. We'll never lurve ya one whit less.

Only if you agree with us.