Edited in fairness to Lance Armstrong. 

Let's not forget he might have been on hormone replacement therapy... so that he could compete equally. Testosterone is necessary for that.

 Some may argue with this but it is all part of the bigger world we live in.  As individuals we tend to lose sight of that. 

I have always attempted to live a life that broke no rules of the established society that I live in.  It is a pity that there are many that walk amongst us that don't care to or see no reason to do that.  Of course though this is nothing new, been going on for ages, long before any of us were here and will go on long after we are gone.

It's also possible that he didn't dope and that he's just tired of fighting a fight he can never win.

Yup. 

An international sports committee getting something wrong?  Never.... 

He may have cheated, but there's a sizable chance that he didn't.  

If he can't win it means he can only lose....and that means 'no contest'.

What bugs me is I followed him...loyally in spite of his arrogance...and in spite of him quaintly avoiding all the other first class events...eg the Giro just so he could magically [it seems] be sure to win Le Tour.

Cycling 'invented' drugs in sport... even before the steroids of weight lifting, etc...so it's certainly not uncommon.  Heck, people have died on the road due to drug use during the race.

When someone ends up stripped of a title/win my feelings go out to the poor bastard who [then] came second....and missed out on the legitimate kudos [and income] HE deserved.

Same with the Olympics.....you're the poor bugger on the lower step....missing out on all the fame and fortune attributed to the 'winner'.

It's shitty for ALL 188 OTHER riders in the field.....AND the 2 million LIVE spectators...and the hundreds of million TV viewers.

If he believed in himself and his(undoped) abilities, imho, he should have made a stand, even if it was a last stand.

A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand

Sometimes, even in the face of overwhelming odds and certain defeat, the battle must still be fought. Not for hope of a victory, but because it  must be fought.

His reasons for lying down and letting himself be kicked are solely his own.

Exactly...if he can't be blowed to defend his reputation then I'm certainly not in his stead....

It does not make sense if he was allowed to compete at the time after completing a drug test and being cleared.  If there were no drugs then, how could there be now?  Sounds really fishy and corrupt to me. He did not admit to using drugs, which is highly unlikely anyway, he just got tired of all the abuse and bullshit.  I probably would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.  He is a good man, leave him to hell alone.

Right, because there's no evidence around the world of individuals losing fights against large government or governing organizations that are in the wrong simply due to a lack of resources or bureaucratic inertia or the overwhelming reach and strength of those institutions.   

Edit: For the record I have no idea, and not much opinion, on whether or not Armstrong is guilty.  I don't really care, because I find cycling boring.  But the idea that "well clearly if he's not willing to continue his fight against some big, super powerful organization, then he must be guilty" strikes me as wrong-headed. 

You do know there IS NO political [or other] advantage to be had [for the UCI] in stripping a person's results years AFTER an event, not when the very act indicates some failing in the system at the time.  The results were/are done and dusted.  The only on-going result from 7 Tour victories is to Armstrong's bank balance.  The reason the issue has come to light NOW rather than then is clearly [a bit of] finger pointing and subsequent proficiency in testing methods.

Changes to drug restrictions obviously can't be retrospective.... but transgressions of then-current restrictions certainly can....as that appears to be the case here.

He's certainly not being victimized.....how many entrants got their bums kicked this year alone?

Well said Zu! I totally agree!

Enough said. 

First off the USADA has absolutely zero authority to strip Lance of any of his Tour de France wins nor anything else except perhaps his 2000 Olympic bronze medal. The UCI is the international governing body of cycling and in fact has required the USADA to present it's evidence to them and they will decide what, if anything, will be done regarding Lance's Tour de France and other cycling titles.

Secondly Lance has never failed a drug test nor has any of these charges ever been proven in a court of law. All Lance did was not agree to give up his legal rights and have his case settled via binding arbitration by an arbiter of the USADA's choosing. If the USADA had a legitimate case against Lance then they would have no compunction against proving it in a court of law. The fact that they haven't done so proves to me that the USADA has no legitimate case against Armstrong and is left with nothing but innuendo and supposition.

Refusing to agree to arbitration from an organization that has zero authority in the sport of cycling is nowhere near an admission of guilt, it's simply a refusal to participate in a farce. As far as giving up is concerned let's first see if the USADA even bothers to present its case to the UCI. If it does I doubt Lance will not take the opportunity to defend himself.

He survived SO MANY investigations. Why don't they just lay off him?

Correct.

Innocent until proven guilty. They have not done that despite endless tries.

USADA? More bureaucrats selling their raison d'etre. 

And damned right. Screw those witch hunters.

No one talks about the $325 million he's donated to cancer research, nor the cancer victims to whom he has given the precious will to fight and win.

Lance Armstrong had testicular cancer with lung and brain metastases, and seizures from them.

That man went through it all: Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and took the Tour 7, SEVEN times! I will stand and tip my hat anytime he goes by.

@Mumblefratz: 100% correct.

The only evidence they have is testimony of people that were actually caught doping with the same stuff they've accused him of not only using, but doling out to them in the first place.  He passed the same tests they failed.

Bullshit.

That said, no one fights the USADA and wins.  That there's a fight means they've already been assumed guilty.  All Armstrong could do to help himself is "confess" in return for fewer sanctions.  His former buddies that got caught already used him as their way out of punishment.  Hamilton got off with just his Olympic medal being taken away, something the IOC would have done anyway, and did do later.  It also helps his book sales if Armstrong is disgraced.  Landis is in a similarly beneficial situation, no comparable action on the part of the ADA against him.  Armstrong has no bigger fish to fry.

Sounds like something needs a due process.

A reasonable aside:  Statisticians have published work in significant publications calling into question the entire doping process for making decisions from shoddy statistical inference.  This stems from the fact that doctors and lawyers generally have horrid understanding of advanced statistics, and yet they are using statistics to back their judgement and their decisions. It's commonly called the prosecutor's fallacy.  

Here is an article about one such piece published in Nature .  Unfortunately the Nature article itself is behind the paywall.  I don't follow the sport, so maybe they've improved their standards and knowledge since the article was published a few years ago. 

The legitimacy of their testing process and the seemingly witch-hunt like zeal they've gone after Armstrong for years are both giant red flags to taking the agency at their word though.  At least in my mind.  

Like the others, I would happily buy the man a beer, for his charitable work and for what he went through, if I ever had the chance.