I've never really kept up with the Lance debates, and certainly am not an expert. But if that is the "breaking news" on his doping history then I'm not worried about his legacy at all. There was nothing in that entire article that wasn't hearsay or anecdotal. Nothing that struck me as particularly new. And the only doping evidence was pre 1999 which means it is not pertinent to the current grand jury hearing.
I've never really kept up with the Lance debates, and certainly am not an expert. But if that is the "breaking news" on his doping history then I'm not worried about his legacy at all. There was nothing in that entire article that wasn't hearsay or anecdotal. Nothing that struck me as particularly new. And the only doping evidence was pre 1999 which means it is not pertinent to the current grand jury hearing.