Only hearsay - no blood testing results.
LOL—whenever I see a comment like that, I’m reminded of Rumsfeld’s term, “deadender.”
He knows what he did and didn’t do but he also can never be erased from he podiums of the news coverage then. He is still in possession of the yellow jerseys. Even the labs can produce no evidence but only suspicion. Suspicion based on what, that he was not a European and especially a Frenchman?
Somebody’s ox got gored and they have made it their business to destroy someone because of a personal vendetta. Is Bart Giamatti still alive?
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.
Go to the Appendices and Supporting Documents tab here and read the affidavits. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Vaughters, and Zabriske in particular. http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
Eye-witness testimony is NOT hearsay. If it were, we’d almost never convict anyone in court. Hearsay is just that...someone testifying they heard someone else saying something.
The eye-witness testimony of 26+ ex team mates, employees, trainers, etc. etc. aren’t enough?
What dream world are you living in?