Justice delayed is justice denied, isn't it?
I'm no cycling fan. Definitely not a fan of men in Lycra. Have no particular regard for Lance Armstrong, despite his claims to fame being well known to me, and almost everyone on the planet.
All the same, the leading headline in The Age strikes me as unsubtle and inappropriate. Has the cycling fraternity really been sitting round for nearly a couple of decades, waiting to catch or clear Armstrong? To potentially strip him of his wins, thereby (with logic that escapes me), giving the sport a clean tick in the eyes of the public (and thereby destroying the heroic record of the man who made the sport popular)?
The Armstrong blood samples in question are from 2009 and 2010. The samples do not indicate drug use; possibly blood transfusions. None of hundreds of tests have come up positive over a period of 16 years. He is not even cycling anymore (he's gone into the triathlon business). An earlier two year investigation came up empty. The people who peddled gossip about Armstrong during that investigation have provided the basis for the action to suspend Armstrong from participating in triathlons, and the basis for a new investigation. What's new, one wonders.
Yet, the threat is to strip Armstrong of of his seven Tour De France titles. Based on this and that, not based on the science from 500 or so drug tests.
Got me beat, but it seems walks, quacks and looks like a kangaroo court.
Armstrong and cycling finally confront elephant in the room