Eyewitness testimony is not “hearsay.”. Hearsay would be if all the evidence was people saying “I heard Armstrong say that he doped.”. The evidence against Armstrong is, instead, a whole bunch of people saying, “I saw Armstrong do a, b and c,” which is not hearsay.
“I heard Armstrong say that he doped.” would not be hearsay, it is direct testimony as to what the witness heard.
"Bob said that Armstrong says he doped." would be hearsay, because the witness only knows what Bob told him, not what Armstrong actually said.
They don’t have any test results. Shouldn’t tht count for something, or nothing, as it were? Does no one find it troubling ha=ow this has been “tried?”