believability list

Mike, when a jury doesn't know which witnesses to believe, then which
ever side can present the most compelling physical evidence has a
better shot at winning. While I personally believe LA is as guilty of
doping as the day is long, and probably used gobs of US Postal money
to pay for it (something I have no idea as to whether or not that is
illegal, or constituted fraud), the physical evidence to support these
allegations as been extremely thin to date. What has been presented
(e.g. '99 EPO results, TdS positive test, corticosteroid positive,
etc.) appears to not be too solid, and can be challenged on many
fronts. Perhaps Novitsky has some stuff up his sleeve.

On the other side, LA's team has 500+ negative doping tests that they
can point to, and a very compelling unasked question to put in the
minds of the jury - if a person can pass 500+ doping tests, and yet
the prosecution says that he was a dyed-in-the-wool doper who was
cranked for every event, then it's obvious that doping tests are
worthless (IMO, they are worthless for proving a rider to be "clean"),
and that any and every rider in the peloton is just as suspect as LA
of doping - so why the witch hunt against Lance? Perhaps such an
appeal may play to the jury.