On May 21, 10:29*pm, Randall wrote:
Allegations by Hincapie that he witnessed Lance dope might be enough
to indict. But convicting Armstrong in a trial is altogether a
different matter. *I am uncertain that *witnessing someone dope is
enough to convict him in a court of law. The blood samples could be
challenged on chain of evidence basis.

e.g. half a dozen or more teammates say they saw him dope. Half a
dozen say they never saw him dope. LA's lawyers say, well, if he doped
as much as they say, then he'd surely have tested positive (yeah,
Anton, we know about the French tests on the old samples, different
way they'll go after those), where are the positive tests? As you say,
more is needed.

And for the billionth time - everyone knows LA doped. Proving it, and
linking it to criminal behavior is a completely different matter.