My post made perfect sense. You must not have read it before responding. I clearly said that everyone doesn't keep up with the details of competitive cycling, and that those making definite statements about past events should provide links.
A news story quoting the USADA isn’t very persuasive.
Note they don’t say they have doped blood results. Instead, they use the weasel words “consistant with” doping.
For example, maybe there is no evidence of drugs, but the blood is so clean it looks like someone went out of their way to get it clean — hence it looks like you might expect if someone was trying to hide doping.
If someone calls you a liar, and you say they are lying, that is “consistant with” their charge that you are a liar.
They have people, mostly disgraced athletes who were caught cheating, or ones who got OFF of their charges by testifying, who claim they SAW armstrong cheat, but none of them have any evidence either.
And of course, they don’t even have access to blood, or any evidence of doped blood, for the 7 tours that he won. So they are trying to strip his titles based SOLELY on the testimony of disgraced people who CLAIM he was doped — while the physical evidence proves he was NOT doped. Note that under the rules of the tour, the doping tests were dispositive, not claims by teammates or rivals without evidence.