Ok, here's my 2 cents...bottom line, blood and urine tests that don't lie vs. people, who do lie, particularly for sweet deals where they admit to doping in exchange for minor penalties. Yes, everyone has their "opinions" on this, but, like the adage says, "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one." Now, whether you like Lance, hate Lance, or just don't care either way, this is an important bicycle racing event for more reasons than Lance and what people may think of him.
Fact is there's no proof. Yet an agency, the USADA, supported with our taxes, gets to bypass the rules and say, "Other rider's words (who got sweetheart penalty deals) are more valid proof than 500 passed drug tests." So, what do young riders who win do now? When teammates, who may dislike you, can now come forward and say, "He took performance enhancing drugs.", yet all the tests are negative and the young rider loses...and they get sweetheart penalty deals. Changing the rules after the fact to go after Lance, in my mind, does greater harm to bicycle racing than any alleged doping by Lance. Playing fair is playing fair all the time. It's not a variable that's alterable to suit the desires of the USADA in what appears to be a witch hunt.
Is doping widespread in cycling? In sports? Does anyone really know? The real question seems to be: Does anyone really care to find out? More than changing the rules after the fact needs to be done to address this issue. And someone with better ethics than Travis Tygart needs to be leading that charge. Here's an L.A. Times article on Lance that's worth the read and makes my point much better than I did.
Now, while this video is not an exact fit for this situation, it's main sentiment fits for Tygart and U.S. Cycling, if this travesty is allowed to stand. Until it changes up, U.S. cycling is off my list of things to pay attention to.