My research into Enron has made me utterly disdainful of “witness testimony”. Oral testimony which is not backed by tangible evidence from the period of time in question is essentially worthless. Study after study has shown that witness testimony is incredibly inaccurate. Not only do people’s biases and personal agendas taint their testimony, but witnesses are remarkably easy to manipulate by prosecutors. And witness testimony about alleged activities many years in the past is meaningless. Plus, people routinely lie, even under oath — the Enron cases were peppered with people who we know lied.
I have no idea if Armstrong used drugs. But the USADA wants us to accept that Armstrong is guilty of doping simply because some people say he is guilty more than a decade after the fact!
In some ways, this is worse than the Salem witch trials. People were burned at the stake in Salem in 1692 because some “witnesses” said they were currently witches. Imagine if people were burned at the stake because “witnesses” claimed that they had been witches ten years ago although they said nothing at the time and no tangible evidence exists.
That’s the Armstrong situation.