Without confirmation, Lance Armstong should keep his innocence

In a United States court, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

This practice, also known as the presumption of innocence, is widely accepted in the nation.

When it comes to the court of public opinion though, a person is often guilty until proven innocent.

Lance Armstrong, seven-time Tour de France winner and hero to billions, is the victim of a relentless media and a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) witch-hunt.

Earlier this month, the USADA released a nearly 1,000-page report accusing Armstrong of doping, forcing his teammates to dope and deceiving the entire sport of cycling.

For a 1,000-page report, one would assume that the evidence within would be overwhelmingly damning.

However, that is not the case.

If an agency is going to accuse Armstrong of doping, then there should be a great deal of evidence, like positive drug tests, photos of Armstrong doping or some physical proof.

USADA’s report is based entirely on other cyclists’ testimonies, with no physical proof whatsoever.

How can an agency strip Armstrong of his seven titles without a single positive drug test?

Some, but not nearly all, of Armstrong’s teammates testified that he led a sophisticated doping ring, ran when the doping police came to town and in turn, forced all of his team to dope.

Former teammates, like George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer, have come out against Armstrong and in turn admitted to their own doping as well.

Another critical failing of the USADA report is a “suspicious” drug test result from Armstrong’s 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

The test results serve as one of USADA’s pieces of evidence, when in fact they show that Armstrong was in acceptable limits.

“There was no positive test on the Tour of Switzerland in 2001,” Martial Saugy, director of the laboratory that performed the tests, said, according to AFP News.

The suspicious sample was ruled out last week by a Tour of Switzerland official, further proving that Armstrong did not dope.

I admit, the witness testimony against Armstrong is convincing; however, in a sport of liars and cheaters, I can see those aforementioned cyclists taking Armstrong down with them.

The question of Armstrong’s guilt raises a large question about an issue plaguing society.

In a world of instant gratification and instant desire for knowledge, something has to give.

In this case, it was Armstrong.

Rather than read the report themselves, or actually look at more than one news source, many jumped the gun and assumed that Armstrong was guilty.

Did Armstrong dope?

I’ll never know. However, the evidence in support of him (lack of any positive drug tests) is enough for me to support him for life.

The International Cycling Union will announce today if Armstrong will be stripped of his titles.

Regardless of their decision, my support will continue for cycling’s greatest athlete and humanitarian.

Shane Newell is a sophomore journalism major and an assistant city editor for the Daily 49er.