Tour de France 2010

Seriously Sparky if that is your idea of research then....

This alone discredits the whole article :*He tested positive for a banned substance once, for cortisone at the 1999 Tour, but produced a doctor’s note saying the drug was medically necessary for saddle sores. He received no punishment and went on to win his first Tour.
*When you read the background to that you will find that he didn't just produce a doctor's note. He should have had a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) certificate; he didn't have one. He managed to produce a retrospective one that was, curiously, accepted by the UCI. The UCI later accepted a large donation from Armstrong towards it's 'anti doping' programme though the money was never tracked once it had been given. The then UCI president Hein Verbruggen was, and remains, a big pal of Armstrong and one of the key figures in denying the real extent of the doping problem in cycling.
And so it goes on..... and on and on and on. I am afraid that one article, which is sketchy at best and plain wrong at worst, is hardly going to weigh much against the stack of evidence against Armstrong. I thought journalists were meant to be interested in getting at the truth not simply finding the most tendentious piece of drivel that comes to hand but which supports the position they have already decided to take?
Really, there are quite a lot of people on here who know a lot about professional cycling, have read a lot of books about it, followed it for decades. I would be very surprised if any of them believe Arstrong rode clean. In fact, laughably, the article you quote actually undermines your own case; it mentions that riders who had previously finished second, third, fourth and fifth to Armstrong didn't start in 2006. Because they had all either been caught doping or were so heavily implicated the TdF wouldn't let them start. And yet we are still meant to believe that Armstrong was so good he could not just beat them but beat them by a margin while he was riding clean? Perhaps that doesn't meet your standard of proof but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

No offence, but there's so much heresay and rumour in there that not a newspaper in the land could publish it. Yes, I'm sure the sport has skeletons in the closet, but I'm just completely unconvinced that Lance has come back to the sport and been doping.