I like the back and forth between the two books but don't agree with Gifford: all the circumstantial evidence combined is the smoking gun. Even is someone saw Armstrong dope, proof would be want. The only thing missing from "Lance to Landis" is that Armstrong is using his cancer survivorship as a means to promote himself. He's protected behind the cancer shield. So many are let down and many more would be were they to read this book. It's a shame.

Sam Andersstrom

The Armstrong debate has been tired for a long time, but it is still fascinating how many so-called supporters of cycling, including the authors in question here, are so intent on destroying their sport. It's one thing to go after those who have been caught red-handed, but like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, they also insist on going after those who there is no solid proof against, thus creating an atmosphere where no one will ever again be above suspicion. This is in marked contrast to how sports drug scandals have been handled in the U.S. Certainly, Barry Bonds has felt the heat, but there is no concerted effort to prove Alex Rodriguez has taken drugs, even though he is in line to surpass Ruth, Aaron and Bonds in a few years.

To borrow an idea from a different post, there is one thing that flies in the face of the "Armstrong must have did it" theory: He wasn't a champion before cancer. Apparently, being a champion wasn't all that important to him coming up through the ranks and it was only during his recovery he turned to drugs? And then he found they could leapfrog him over every other rider in the world...including those who were perfectly healthy and (we now know) were already doping? And he managed to do this without ever getting caught, despite all the drug tests and scrutiny that came from winning the Tour de France seven straight times?

One thing is certain: If the accused were named Sam Andersstrom, the level of proof required would be infinitely higher than you have set it in your post.