If physical evidence is the standard for guilt or innocence, Jerry Sandusky is innocent in your mind, right?
Eye-witness testimony is evidence, and I think Armstrong knew that evidence was overwhelmingly against him.
The best thing to come out of this latest fiasco is that Greg Lemond is vindicated. The Armstrong smear machine really did a job on Lemond over the years. If there’s any justice Lemond will regain his status as the greatest American cyclist.
From the descriptions I have heard, the testimony in question is more akin to someone swearing that Armstrong admitted something.
Nice strawman, by the way. Sandusky’s case involved eyewitness and victim testimony. That is first-hand testimony, not hearsay.
I have yet to see a description of a first-hand witness to the alleged doping in the USADA evidence. If Armstrong indeed did admit to doping, then that may be discussed as evidence, but if it’s disputed by the person who is alleged to have said it, then it is far from probative.
Again - I have no stake in this matter, nor do I pretend to know whether or not Armstrong is guilty. But I do know when a legal pursuit takes on the appearance of a witch hunt.